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

I’m glad the historical muddling of data was acknowledged so explicitly today in the HoL and that they understood the practical issues.

I’m also so glad Baroness Ludford interrupted Lord Patrick Vallance to correct him when he stated that for the last 15 years, there was no need to record biological sex but there is now because the SC had changed the law. She was saying what we’ve all been forced to say on repeat since April 16th…that this was always the law (but it speaks volumes that PV didn’t think that).

Just think what an amazing group of women we have here. Someone asks a question, and then, there's your answer found and given. Such a depth and breath of knowledge. MNers being prepared to investigate, learn, broadcast information – and be funny, all at the same time. Thank you, everyone (well, nearly everyone, not forgetting our flyby friends).

It’s not going to change the Sullivan Report, though.

So the same amendment that was voted down in the commons was approved by the lords and the commons now have to re vote on it? And it can just go back and forward, back and forward?

The lord's have said

Your bill is crap. We are changing it to this.
So the bill now reads 'sex' as per the amendment.
It goes back to the Commons to approve or reamend.

So you can have a bit of ping pong.

There are certain things the government can do to force the issue but this depends on the nature of the bill (was it in the manifesto) as to how this plays out.

Ok can someone explain to me like I'm 5 what this means and what happens next in the commons?

And then of course I find it straight away!

https://danielbarker.mycouncillor.org.uk/2019/02/05/lgbt-history-month-by-lynne-featherstone/

I haven't got time to find the exact reference but it may be in this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5295968-lib-dems-told-not-to-discriminate-against-people-with-gender-critical-views?reply=142915378

Also conspicuous by her absence was B. Featherstone of the LibDems, who once said:

Do you know where she said this? It would be useful to have a proper reference.

No.

Cos it's got fuck all to do with the data bill and everything to do with them not wanting to air dirty laundry in public.

They'll just make another lame excuse next time around too.

The EHRC is irrelevant to this bill.

Do you think they mean the Supreme Court ruling and how the EHRC will provide full guidelines on this in June (I think)?

Would, could it have an impact?

Also conspicuous by her absence was B. Featherstone of the LibDems, who once said:
"I also have a message to those people who believe they can restrict trans women's rights, deny their human rights or exclude them from women-only spaces in the name of feminists. You are not feminists. Your views are not welcome in the Liberal Democrats."

That's complete bullshit.

It's political speak.

The EHRC is irrelevant to this bill. They know this. They are Lords.

This bill is about Data collection. Not the Equality Act.

"However, the Liberal Democrats will abstain from votes on the noble Viscount’s amendments for several key reasons.
Our primary reason is the need to allow time for the EHRC’s guidance to be finalised."

Lord Clement-Jones, Lib Dem obv, using the government's excuse though.

Rather curiously only three LDs bothered with this vote. The dissenting LD was Baroness Ludford, whilst the two who voted with the government was B Hamwee and B Warmsley.

Not Baroness Sal Brinton then? She who when asked about all women shortlists and whether 50% men and 50% transwomen would be acceptable said:

On the issue - would I be happy with 50% transwomen? Absolutely. A transwoman is a woman.

Given that the Supreme Court judgement was delivered as a result of this specific question being posed, her reply now looks mighty foolish.

Yes, Sal. We have kept the receipts.

Rather curiously only three LDs bothered with this vote. The dissenting LD was Baroness Ludford, whilst the two who voted with the government was B Hamwee and B Warmsley.

The LD have 77 Lords.

Make of that what you will... They didn't want to get involved. That strikes me as knowing it's toxic internally within the party itself and wanting to let the Con and Labour fight it out between them.

My thoughts here is that they worked out the government would be defeated without their help and we're not willing to prop up the government. So there's a lot of LD lords who probably are much more at odds with gender v sex than are willing to openly say so.

Especially, if you consider, there was another division for the bill later, where 62 of the 77 turned up to vote against the government.

Hmmm. Noticeable to those us paying attention.

I’ve just seen the the amendment was passed in the House of Lords today.
Looks like we’re on for some parliamentary ping-pong!

I think the Lords needs to be reformed but at times like this, I am glad they are there, to cut out the batshittery that we see in the Commons.

This raises a really interesting prospect.

We could end up with the Conservatives in the Lord's but not the Commons making a huge difference to our law making, whilst they have next to no MPs in the Commons cos they get wiped out at the next election.

Meanwhile Reform get a shed load of MPs in the Commons but have no one in the Lords.

Screenshot

Amendment 1

Viscount Camrose moved Amendment 32A, as an amendment to the motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32, to leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 32, and do propose Amendments 32B and 32C to the words so restored to the Bill—
32B Clause 28, page 30, line 34, leave out “personal data attributes” and insert “sex data”
32C Clause 28, page 30, line 34, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), sex data is reliably ascertained if it is 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.””

Labour red, Con blue, Cross Bench light grey, LD yellow, Other dark grey. This was won by Con support against Lab in practice.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1921967025099882665?t=UDq59mZs-V5K0sVrzXFKLQ&s=19

Good news

I love MN - I learn so much!

You can also watch it from the beginning on Parliament TV, just rewind to 4pm. You can fast forward the bits you aren't interested in!

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d6d67582-1f3a-4430-957d-c5d011f6a9db

Thank you @IDareSay.

Hansard here, refresh occasionally to read the debate (it's still going on and Hansard currently over 90 minutes behind).

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-05-12/debates/45252051-8C6C-4193-A53D-AC083E777D08/Data(UseAndAccess)Bill(HL)