Urgent BH terfing- write to your MP TODAY 5th May on the Data Bill

Fingers crossed!

I agree, but the Government needs to throw resource at the issue in order to make sure that whatever text ends up in the final version of the Bill is sufficiently workable. That MAY mean accepting the HoL amendment or it may mean bringing forward an equivalent government amendment at the next stage (Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments) that has been worked through in detail by Parly Counsel to make sure that, insofar as it is possible, it is future-proofed and has been fully thought through.

It is more common, when Government accepts the principle of an Opposition amendment, for Government to bring forward a government amendment at the next available moment so that it can be sure that the drafting is robust. I hope they are in that territory and are currently assembling all relevant experts to make sure they can EITHER accept the latest amendment as draft OR bring forward something to the same effect.

Thanks @AlexandraLeaving, agreed.

Just to add, though: in terms of rushed law, there couldn’t be a more fitting bill to acknowledge the problem without knowing exactly how to solve it today, but knowing it will nevertheless need to be solved.

I haven’t been following the other strands particularly closely, but since all the debates are a mishmash of all the issues (AI, artists’ copyright, scientific research, age of online consent, etc) it seems like lots of other ‘data’ areas are currently drafted as acknowledging the issue and making sure there’s a legal mechanism to deal with it over the next year or two (e.g. further consultation, research and reports) rather than having all the answers right now.

This bill is a perfect example of where the law is urgent to enable the govt to grapple with a growing issue, but the issue is so complex, sprawling and has so many competing interests (e.g. the fine balance between regulating vs stifling AI business in this country, AI development vs writers’ financial protection, etc) that if they waited until they all agreed to pass the law, it would be too late to deal with the problems coming over the horizon.

I think the current drafting on sex strikes that balance as it’s not jumping in to change the current system like NC21 was (which was still worth a try and generated a useful debate), but acknowledges the issue of inaccurate sex data that will need to be addressed before that data is used for digital verification. I don’t think that feels like it’s jumping the gun on the SC ruling, as all it’s doing is acknowledging that we need to assess where we are in terms of sex data, which we already know will be needed for at least some important purposes.

That reads like a copy and paste email to send to all people who emailed about it, no matter whether they were for or against the amendment.

For anyone wanting to read the debate, Hansard is here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-05-12/debates/45252051-8C6C-4193-A53D-AC083E777D08/Data(UseAndAccess)Bill(HL)

I am not sure the Parliament Acts would apply, because this Bill started in the Lords. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/ However, the HoL often acquiesces after things have ping-ponged a couple of times, on the grounds that the HoC is the democratically elected House. But at least they are currently forcing the Government to think about how to ensure accuracy on this point.

The point mentioned by a PP’s MP and by the Minister in the Lords, about not rushing without thinking things through fully, is a fair one: rushed law is often bad law. But sometimes you just have to get your thinking done quickly because a genuine problem has arisen, and this is (in my view) one of those times.

ETA sorry I meant to quote @moto748e re the Parliament Act, rather than @LonginesPrime.

It may well get voted out again as labour has a majority in the commons, but on the plus side, this version does take into account many of the objections raised last week (e.g. compelling orgs to record sex data), so we will see.

The great thing is that so many people in both houses are openly acknowledging that biological sex matters, which is incredible progress in itself!

That's good, but the Commons can ignore the Lords, can't they? Parliament Act, or something? I'm not very clear about it.

The HoL voted in something similar this afternoon - here’s the Sex Matters briefing on the amendment they passed.

It basically provides a mechanism for digital verification proving a person’s sex to be limited to data obtained from the departments who actually know that person’s sex (so likely just the original birth registry currently).

What happened? My lousy Google-fu can't find anything. Is this Chris Bryant's "We're dealing with it" thing?

You could email her back with “well it is back in the bill now, but thanks for your helpful update”.

Ok, so the HoL didn’t adopt the exact same wording, but what they’ve passed today is sufficient to ensure that only reliable sources can be used to verify sex, which is the important bit. Hopefully the HoC will leave it alone now that it won’t mandate sex-based driving licences, etc, which seemed to be what much of the hand-wringing in the HoC was about last week.

Honestly, some MPs. How to loose votes!

'If' I wanted to pursue that, I think my tack would be, OK, please explain how you can dismiss the concerns of Sex Matters. They list numerous problems with the Bill that they believe the amendment will solve. Can you explain how/why they are wrong about that? Please show your working.

And tell me what 'lived reality' is. 😀

I got a response today from my MP. She's previously been quite GC so I'm a bit puzzled.

Zero Labour MPs voted for the Tory amendment, not even Tonia Antoniazzi. I suppose that's a convention.

Thank you for the links. I can see my MP didn't vote...

Mr F doesn't seem to bother himself with the business of lawmaking. Much prefers the limelight

He's Lib Dem and it seems they all voted against the amendment.

Not quite so. 16 have no vote recorded.
112 Labour MPs didn't vote and 26 Tories.

Nor did Mr Reform himself, Nigel Farage.

I haven't had a response from my MP. He's Lib Dem and it seems they all voted against the amendment.

I didn't receive a response from my MP (sent the standard template letter) but she was one of the 97 MPs who voted for the amendment (found the link on Glinner's substack).

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/2016#ayes

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/2016#noes

PersephoneSmith
Principle 1.3 states
”1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.”

Did they act fairly and impartially without discrimination or bias? They can disagree with you but it should be evidence or principle based not knee jerk name calling.

Principle 1.7 states
” 1.7 Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

Did they act uphold the principles with their behaviour and did they treat you with respect?

I think if they have resorted to name calling a constituent who emails them on a genuine concern with draft legislation, a concern shared by some MPs, they have failed to uphold those principles.

Interesting. I don’t know anything about this at all, how do you think it could be a breach of the principles?

If they accused you of being transphobic for raising a concern about the drafting of legislation that could well be a breach of Principles of Public Life (aka the Nolan Principles)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

Particularly 1.3 objectivity and 1.7 leadership.

You could send a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as the POPL form part of the MP’s Code of Conduct which is under his remit.

https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/

I'm not sure if this is a question for the new thread or not.
There were several clauses in the amendment, did they all fail, or did some pass? One was about AI and copyright, another was about age verification.

WTF? Are MPs allowed to insult constituents like that?

I've started a new thread with a clearer title to track the progress of the Bill. I hope that is OK and please do come over:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5331462-sex-and-the-data-use-and-access-bill-supreme-court-ruling-undone-by-stealth