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?

"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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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

And then of course I find it straight away!

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

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

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.

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?

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

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).

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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

How extraordinary, when he is a scientist.

How disgusting in fact. How dismissive of women.

Labour Peer.

Party before women.

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.

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. 😁

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

Live on Parliament TV

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.