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

[KnottyAuty]

A new thread to discuss what might be done about this potential disaster for accurate data recording on sex and implications. As before, if sex data is not recorded this will be default, government backed gender self ID.

"Core to this bill is a trust framework for “digital verification services” (DVS) to allow people to exchange verified personal information about themselves easily without relying on paper documents"

In other words a male can register with the app as a female, and the app will create a type of pass for entry into any single sex space.

Background briefing from last December:
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Summary-report-Sex-and-the-Data-Bill.pdf

Briefing on the Amendment for accurate recording of sex - MPs voted against last Wednesday (7th May):
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Data-Bill-briefing-%E2%80%93-Amendment-NC21.pdf

Many of us will have emailed our MPs after this thread last weekend:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5328897-urgent-bh-terfing-write-to-your-mp-today-5th-may-on-the-data-bill

Many of us have had no reply. Others have received a reply and been called transphobic by their MP! This is despite public opinion clearly hardening against self ID on YouGov polls.

The Bill is going to the Lords next Wednesday 12th May.

What can be done to press for accurate recording of sex in this new digital ID system?

In the end, it is insurance that brings in many "laws" by the back door.
Here in Germany it is not (yet) compulsory to use winter tyres (deeper tread, not the studded ones) during the winter months. But if you have an accident during the winter, and you have "summer" tyres on your car, your insurance pay out will be reduced because you didn't do all you could to avoid the accident (due to ice or whatever)

So the de facto rule here is that in October we all get our winter tyres on, and just after Easter we change them all back. Just to be sure.

I got no reply from my Labour MP. How can I find out how he voted, please?

Wasn't there a recent thread or news article where a woman's holiday insurance wouldn't pay out because she'd started HRT and not informed them? And another which wouldn't pay out because a doctor had merely documented their wondering about a condition which was never actually diagnosed?

My personal experience of Insurance Companies is that if they can find an excuse not to pay out, they will.

Apparently it varies between insurers: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=402246942948184

Just Google you’re MP’s name and ‘voting record’ and you’ll get a link for your MP’s voting record on the UK Parliament web site.

Thank you. I had no idea it was so straightforward to find out what a misbegotten git my MP is.

Debate in the HoL has started. Go to ParliamentTV and rewind to 4pm.

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!

Seriously?!? Oh, I must go find the Hansard transcripts for that!

I love the HoL, a bastion of sense and careful scrutiny.

Apparently, some good points were raised, alongside the batshit ones!

Do you have a link? I’m on the Hansard site, but am only getting commentary from one Lord.

I’ve picked this up from Twitter. Sex Matters posted the outcome, others who watched it on TV reported on the mixed quality of points raised

Hansard takes a while to catch up. There is another Sex Matters amendment coming up after the one on AI etc currently being discussed.

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)

Thank you @IDareSay.

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

I love MN - I learn so much!

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

Good news

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.

Screenshot

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.

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.

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.

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.