🤔 Point of Order

• Point of Order: Dr Caroline Johnson raised concerns about a letter she received from the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms regarding the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The letter suggested that passports can be used to verify someone’s sex or gender, which Dr Johnson argued was incorrect as passports only indicate the likely sex and not a definitive verification.

• Response from Madam Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Speaker acknowledged Dr Johnson’s notice and her effort to inform the relevant minister. She clarified that the Chair isn’t responsible for the accuracy of ministerial correspondence but noted that Dr Johnson’s point was now on record for others, including the Treasury Bench, to take note of.

• Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill: This bill progressed quickly through its parliamentary stages. It was read a second time, and then a third time, and subsequently passed without any debate or amendments on the floor of the House.

The session contains a mild level of disagreement, primarily centered around the accuracy of a statement made in a letter regarding the verification of sex through passports. Dr. Caroline Johnson raised a point of order to correct what she believed was a misleading statement by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms. This disagreement is formal and focused on factual accuracy rather than policy or ideological differences. There are no hostile exchanges or personal attacks, which keeps the level of disagreement moderate. The rest of the session appears to be routine legislative business without additional disputes, further supporting a lower disagreement rating.

Examples of disagreement: 1. Dr. Caroline Johnson challenged the Minister’s assertion that passports can verify sex or gender as accurately as digital verification services. She pointed out that passports indicate someone’s likely sex but not definitively, which could be misinterpreted as a direct verification method. This is a factual disagreement and constitutes the primary conflict in the session.

The overall tone remains civil with the disagreement handled through established parliamentary procedures, specifically a point of order, rather than escalating into broader or more heated debates.