Sex and "The Data (Use and Access) Bill" - Supreme Court Ruling Undone by Stealth?

I now know where I know him! It’s the same MP who tried to stop a new clause to make having sex in public toilets illegal. He said it was discriminatory against men because he had searched in vain to find any case where two women had had sex in a toilet. It’s in Hansard. He reckoned most toilets were unisex and private (I disagree with him there). It was an interesting debate from Dec 2003. He made some points about sex in hotels etc. which I can understand the nuance.

I have researched toilet legislation in Hansard in the past and I thought I recognised the name.

If you make public toilet cubicles/rooms completely private then you can’t see what’s happening in them which is useful if it’s illegal. But that’s precisely the wrong thing to do for safety. Because what if something bad is happening in them? And the safety gaps are more important than being disadvantaged that you can’t have a shag in a public loo without the threat of prosecution.

They wanted full control, so much so that they couldn't even allow less than 20 rebels to vote against them

Dreadful to see this, even now.

I don't understand all the details but Sex Matters have said.
https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1922710942090952975?t=4imSQkj_lgB91zNTKrVnrw&s=19
The amendments are out (for now) but there has been very significant movement from the government on the #DataBill

@RhonddaBryant has said that it is unlawful - against the data accuracy principle - for public authorities to mix up gender identity data and sex data in their records.

Now the law needs to be enforced

Rosie has tweeted

https://x.com/RosieDuffield1/status/1922737354550178012?t=4imSQkj_lgB91zNTKrVnrw&s=19
Labour encouraged every one of their GC MPs to miss tonight's vote. They wanted full control, so much so that they couldn't even allow less than 20 rebels to vote against them on a matter of principle. This is indeed significant because it's part of their general direction...

https://sex-matters.org/posts/homepage-carousel/government-admits-that-passports-are-not-reliable/

All good 😊

Apologies @TwoLoonsAndASprout if my response came across as a little bit snippy! I really know very little about Bryant (apart from knowing I don't like him at all )

No, fair enough - I think I might be misremembering a quote from another thread discussing the bill.

I have no idea about his personal circumstances, only that he is the Minister in charge of the bill.

Here is what the formation of a committee means:

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/5532/committee-to-draw-up-reasons

Is that the same Chris Bryant who says his trans child is “terrified” about having to have their actual sex on an electronic ID?

As expected, all Lords amendments defeated in the Commons. A committee will now be formed with Chris Bryant as chair. Guessing this is where the horse-trading will happen.

It means they've gone to vote.

32B and C, along with 52B and C are the relevant amendments on sex.

We haven't reached 52B and C yet, but 32B and C were voted in favour of the government (i.e. against us) by 371 to 98.

(NB this is as I understand proceeding, by no means an expert!)

All listed here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0238/240238.pdf

Yes, the government is still trying to avoid accurate sex data.

Apologies if this has already been stated, but the UK’s adequacy decision has been extended but due to be reviewed end of the year, so there’s a fair bit of pressure on the government to get this over the line ahead of that in this Parliament, so July. That might apply some pressure to MPs.

Commons has finished debating the Lords amendments (inc data on sex) and there is a division (vote). Result imminent.

Live on Parliament TV

Thanks for the insights you're all providing, it helping me understand what's going on, and if I'm understanding it right, the battle is not yet lost. 😁

I was going to say that Norman Tebbit was in the Lords, so he could repeat what he said 20 odd years ago, but then I saw that he'd retired from the Lords 3 years ago.

Labour Peer.

Party before women.

How extraordinary, when he is a scientist.

How disgusting in fact. How dismissive of women.

There's a second relevant amendment that's been voted on. Also went against the government

Viscount Camrose moved Amendment 52A, as an amendment to the motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52, to leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 52, and do propose Amendments 52B and 52C to the words so restored to the Bill—
52B Clause 140, page 173, line 15, leave out “core personal data attributes” and insert “sex data”
52C Clause 140, page 173, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) For the purposes of this section, sex data must be collected in accordance with the following category terms and definitions—
(a) “sex” meaning male or female only based on “sex at birth”, “natal sex” or “biological sex” (these terms carrying the same meaning and capable of being used interchangeably), and
(b) in addition, where it is lawful to do so in accordance with data protection legislation and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, “acquired gender” meaning male or female only, as recorded on a gender recognition certificate issued in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.””

This one's a bit closer than the last but still passed.

Interesting to see that Amanda spielman, ex Ofsted head honcho, voted against it and also tweeted this not too recently. Perhaps she has witnessed “operation let them speak” and being familiar with safeguarding, recognised the risk it poses (or believed in the material reality of sex etc)

x.com/amanda_spielman/status/1916943580268007821

Yep.

That's how it works.

Usually it goes back and forth until they work it out.

The overall idea is that you have a checks and balances to iron out disagreements and until both houses are happy legislation can't be passed. Only when both houses are in agreement does it become law.

The exception being legislation they have promised in the manifesto where the convention is that the Lords ultimately back down after so many attempts:

The Salisbury Doctrine, or "Convention" as it is sometimes called, emerged from the working arrangements reached during the Labour Government of 1945-51, when the fifth Marquess of Salisbury was the Leader of the Conservative Opposition in the Lords. The Convention ensures that major Government Bills can get through the Lords when the Government of the day has no majority in the Lords. In practice, it means that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading, a Government Bill mentioned in an election manifesto.

It means that the Lords help to spot and stop 'bad law' from ever getting through. It's not perfect (and the issue with manifesto pledges is significant in this department).

So yes this is where what you put in the manifesto does matter. I believe this is actually in the manifesto, so there probably is a limit to how many times the Lord's will kick this back to the Commons. They can make it awkward and embarrassing in the process of this regardless. (Again another reason the LD probably are keeping themselves out of it).

Pretty much! When this happens, the government would usually have a plan to concede something to get the bill through.
Any good legislators will have gamed different outcomes depending on what amendments passed or failed, the strength of feeling in the Lords, and how urgently they need to get the bill onto the books.
I hear it may hit the Commons as early as Wednesday.

I don't see how abstaining on a vote on a bill can genuinely be because they are waiting for the updated guidence on the EA. Surely the bill will not wait for that so votes will be cast with or without them. Unless they are saying they think the bill should be paused until then, so are not taking part? Its just an excuse.