Fears Rishi Sunak will renege on promise to clarify definition of biological sex

[IwantToRetire]

Rishi Sunak is facing calls to make a public “cast iron guarantee” to follow through on a pledge to rewrite equality law to protect women, amid Tory MPs’ fears that he will renege on his promise.

Conservative backbenchers are planning to challenge Maria Caulfield, the minister for women, to give an undertaking in the Commons that Mr Sunak will deliver on his promised legal changes to ensure that “mothers and women are not erased from public life”.

Sources close to the Prime Minister insist he remains committed to the pledge, with one saying that the Government is carefully considering advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the matter and another saying, “It’s certainly not being delayed or dropped”.

But senior Tories fear that the party will lose its opportunity to change the law if Mr Sunak fails to act swiftly ahead of an election next year.

One backbencher said: “There is a debate within government about whether this is a hill to die on and it’s unclear how much of a row the Government wants, doing this in the run-up to an election. But if they can’t say what a woman is by the time we go into an election we’re in trouble.”

More ...

A Telegraph article reprinted by Yahoo Fears Rishi Sunak will renege on promise to clarify definition of biological sex (yahoo.com)

I wonder at the motive of the DT for pursuing this (not complaining just wondering)

Also confused:
Maria Caulfied is not the Minister for Women see https://www.gov.uk/government/people/maria-caulfield
Kemi Badenoch is the Minister for Women https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-women-and-equalities--3

Wonder why the article refers to MC as being the one who should ask Sunak in the House of Commons to clarify. Is there some signifigance in this that I dont understand?

Unless it's a statutory instrument:

www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

Would you prefer the Tories on this, even after all they've said and done to further the TRA agenda?

I’m not voting for Labour or Lib Dems. No chance they can sod off.

I hope for a debate and chance to hear parties without the ‘no one is talking about it’

Let me and others choose based on stated positions. If people vote for the gender option rather than sex based they can take ownership of how it pans out.

Problem is even with a gov on board the civil service, police and nhs are way on board the train and will not obey the law as it is now never mind accepting a roll back.
I think we might end up waiting for the medical scandal when 30-40 year olds start dying even when they were happy with their medical transition and how dangerous and experimental this is. Ie that people see we do not have the medical technology to change sex in humans.

You keep saying that the Tories have done awful things but the other main parties not only cheered them on but are more extreme and have shown no signs of rowing back whereas the Tories have made some positive moves in the right direction. Not far enough, that’s for sure, but they have never insulted and belittled GC women in the way the others have. So many of us are frustrated by having nobody to vote for, what about you? If the Tories are the worst are you going to vote for another party despite the dangers they pose?

Such hyperbole! How do you cope with divergence of view, or even practical reality?

Of course I'll be voting for a party that isn't the Tories. I'm a feminist. I see the damage they've done to women and the fact you can't believe a word that comes out of their lying mouths.

I don't know how anyone could vote for them unless they're very rich or very deluded.

What is hyperbolic about that post nothavingit?

@Alexandra2001 I am so sorry about your friend.

My friend died earlier this year from a known, treatable condition: Bi-polar disorder. She'd had it for over 20 years and was on meds. She had a breakdown but there was no bed for her. She, her family and her GP begged the MH team to admit her, but there were no beds. It became too much and she hanged herself.

Her cause of death will most likely be recorded as a Suicide, but it wasn't. She died because there was no bed for her. Because the Tories have destroyed the NHS.

I'm so very sorry for your loss, TooBig.

@ResisterRex - it is very unlikely to be a statutory instrument given the complexity and that to put it beyond doubt, primary legislation would be needed. Even then I think the risk of judicial review is high.

The government is not going to touch it. They are doing everything short of it. A spot of revised guidance. A review. And goodness, a Westminster Hall debate.

These are all gestures of a government that does not want to legislate.

Really important legislation goes through at speed. This change to the Equality Act hasn't even seen a drafting lawyer.

My view, and not popular, is that all three parties are at the same point politically. Not one of them will touch it. They will all muddle through and won't change the law.

Surely primary legislation can't be judicially reviewed because it's going through Parliament.

No, the usual rule is primary legislation can only be challenged on a human rights basis.

But unless you are Suella Braverman, governments will look to resolve legal risk before putting legislation forward. I would say that the Government would have to consult to bring that risk down, and that process, and the resulting legislation could be challenged.

This is all academic as Sunak has run out of time

I also assume that to bring that risk down, they would need to consider the Scottish legislation first, win, then consult, then legislate? That is not enough time really at all.

The original Sex Matters petition pointed towards a statutory instrument (s23 of the GRA). Is that wrong?

I don't know! If it was right, it would be work of months. But assuming that the Government wants to drive down the risk of legal challenge, then they can decide to do otherwise. You might want the fastest route, they might not!

A work of months? Says here they do 3500 a year, with 1000 needing to be considered in Parliament:

www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/

And here it says most simply come into force, with a small number falling outside that:

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06509/

"In the region of 3,500 SIs are made each year. Many SIs are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and simply become law on the date stated. Whether they are subject to parliamentary procedure, and if so which one, is determined by the parent Act.
The majority of SIs subject to parliamentary control automatically come into force but Parliament has the power to annul them within a particular period after they are laid (the negative resolution procedure). A smaller number of SIs require the approval of Parliament before they can be made and brought into force (the affirmative resolution procedure)."

There's a paper here, with an appendix on annulment of SIs:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06509/SN06509.pdf

Do you have an idea of timing on the Scottish legislation?

Will it be decided pre GE do you think

Interesting posts and from ResisterRex too

I know! But you have to draft it, check it, get it listed, redraft it, send it to the two committees and then take it through Parliament. And that's only if, and only if a Minister has said "yes".

You can do them very quickly if it's wanted. Strangely, this does not seem to be happening- oh wait, it's the sound of the Civil Service doing nothing.

Why?

I also thought part of why this got the TRAs' backs up so much was because it would be an SI and therefore quick. Quick in government terms anyway, as would not be primary legislation/dragged out. But it's not exactly clear so who knows.

they would need to consider the Scottish legislation first, win, then consult, then legislate

As this is about UK law the revised Scottish GRR is irrelevant. In fact it would strengthen the UK Government's hand to have the basis of sex clarified in the UK wide law, as it would further show that Scotland's GRR does not comply with UK law.

Also we know that when needed Parliament can pass laws quicky.

But this wont happen, not because it couldn't be done, but because too many MPs are captured, so they wont go along with an uncontested ammendment.

And as said before up thread, the Westminster Hall debate is not a gesture.

It is the result of ordinary voters demanding that the issue be discussed. ie the Government has to have it.

On the basis of this misunderstanding of the procedures have to say will take everything else asserted with a pinch of salt!

Westminster Hall is what happens as a matter of procedure but also, it is the gesture that politicians make when they have very little intention of doing anything. It is a talking shop. A debate in Parliament with legislators matters far more in terms of making change.

Whether it be by secondary legislation or primary, you don't need a debate beforehand.

But if you want to make changes to the Equality Act, I don't think there's a government that won't do this with a consultation, because that would be expected as a matter of public law.

You are very certain that Scotland does not matter. I think it does. While it's obviously based on the application of the Scotland Act, the legitimate interpretation of the Equality Act must also be part of the submissions by both sides. I would be surprised therefore that the Government would do anything in this area, captured or not, before it had that result in its favour.

Procedures are for manipulating - this is politics. It's rarely as simple as saying, change the law. You have to convince all the top people it's worth their time.

Aren't you good! Aren't you righteous!

Oh, and aren't you aware of the fact that when Labour and the Lib-Den coalition make self-ID law there will be no such thing as a woman to damage?

Aw thanks Eats, you can send me my halo in the post.

I am acutely aware of the damage done to women and our rights by 13 years of Tory government, right up to the trans shitshow they have inflicted on us. The trans shitshow that they continue to inflict on us. And the lies they tell about it.

The Tories are damaging women every day the are in power. I am a feminist, why the fuck would I vote for them? Why would any feminist?

Why would any feminist vote for a party that calls them rights hoarding dinosaurs or tells them women can have penises

Calls them bigoted and shrill and their views aren’t worth talking about

Who knows. Answers on a postcard..