Meeting of the Parliament 11 March 2026 [Draft]
There are three important points that I should address to Ms Chapman and the rest of the members in the chamber. It is important to remember that there are existing protections under the 2021 act for transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics, and it is really important to stress that those remain in place. We have endeavoured to ensure that there is no significant overlap.
I wish to explain that the SSI defines sex for the purposes of the 2021 act. We have taken the approach of defining the characteristic of sex as relating to biological sex, which means sex at birth, in the light of the need for our criminal law to be clear and unambiguous. That approach has no wider read-across to other laws, and it reflects the current operation of the 2021 act.
The hate crime model is a proven way of addressing crimes that have been aggravated by malice or ill will on the basis of protected characteristics. However, I accept that it is most certainly not the only approach that can be taken to the protection of women and girls.
I assure Ms Chapman that I very much respect, appreciate and value the work that was undertaken by Baroness Kennedy and the working group that she led. I very much understand why many consider primary legislation on misogyny to be necessary, and there is no reason why legislation on misogynistic harassment cannot be introduced in the next parliamentary session. It is clear that there is still merit in Parliament giving further consideration to bespoke new protections that would be separate from the hate crime framework.
However, we all know that, because of the short time that was left in the parliamentary session after last year’s Supreme Court judgment, there was simply insufficient time to progress a misogyny bill in this session, given the complexities in providing for gendered law. A misogyny bill would have been the first example of gendered law, which is why so many people had rallied around it.