Proposed amendment to the Data Bill discussed in parliament on May 7th. My (labour) MP finally responded.

[GreenFriedTomato]

I emailed my MP using a template from Sex Matters which urged MP's to support the proposed amendment which sought to ensure that digital verification services accurately record sex (such as for healthcare and single sex services). The amendment was voted against when it was discussed in parliament on the 7th of May.

I wasn't even expecting a response as he has ignored other emails I've sent.
Here is his reply.

"The Data (Use and Access) Bill will establish a statutory footing for digital verification services, enabling the use of trusted digital identities, where people can digitally present their information. New Clause 21 would have required public bodies to record sex data as biological sex, where such data is collected.

The proposed amendment was voted down on in the House of Commons on 7 May. A motion disagreeing with this was passed in the House of Lords, but then rejected in a subsequent House of Commons vote.

The Government disagreed with the amendment for a number of reasons. While it has been clear it accepts the recent Supreme Court judgment that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, it acknowledges the importance of working through the judgment carefully and sensitively. It says the way in which public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, taking into account the effects of the Supreme Court ruling and the specific and particular requirements of public authorities. I am also reassured that ministerial work looking at the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets is already underway.

I am aware Ministers expressed concerns that the amendment could potentially interfere with the right to respect for private and family life under the Human Rights Act by requiring public authorities to record sex as biological sex in all cases, regardless of whether it is justified or proportionate. Additionally, people with Gender Recognition Certificates have a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The principle of data accuracy, requiring that only data accurate for the purpose for which it is held can be used, is already included in law. There is nothing within the Bill that alters the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender, or allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically.

The Supreme Court, while stating the importance of biological sex, also emphasised that trans people retain clear protections in law. I agree with the Government that we must ensure a balance of everyone’s rights, including women and trans people, acknowledging that both groups have important and often shared concerns.

Thank you once again for contacting me about this sensitive issue.

Best wishes"

Thoughts?

Here are the links to Sex Matters outlining the concerns, and the email template

https://sex-matters.org/posts/data-and-statistics/sex-and-the-data-bill/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CtqWppg8WkInfoSKtmqWLJwHltfRkDAXqOuthsSjilQ/edit?usp=drivesdk

Edited to add link

we must ensure a balance of everyone’s rights, including women and trans people, acknowledging that both groups have important and often shared concerns

Could someone also remind me what important concerns women often share with trans identifying men?

There is nothing within the Bill that alters the evidence which can be relied upon to prove sex or gender, or allows people to do something digitally that they cannot currently do physically.

Eh?

Unless they mean something entirely different, of course claiming you are the opposite sex is something that can easily be done digitally but not so easily physically,as in person.

And how is someone 'proving' their sex, if they are claiming they are the opposite sex. We're back to 'legal' sex and biological sex again.
It's nothing less than fake ID

'I agree with the Government that we must ensure a balance of everyone’s rights,...'

It's not about right's it's about recording accurate information, if the info is a load of cobblers what's the point in recording it. 🤨

You cannot 'balance' a man's 'right' to access to a non consenting undressed woman with her right to privacy, dignity, decency, safety and freedom from being a male resource for whatever happens to be going on between his ears at the time.

I also got a reply from my labour mp who also did not vote for the amendment. I'm quite pleased her letter is different from yours so they are not a party cut and paste.

Mine said this, and I can't work out her point:

"...under this Bill, where digital verification services identify verified gender, this could not be used to verify biological sex in specific cases where this is needed (for example in healthcare). Therefore, there is no need to mandate the collection of data purely based on biological sex at birth."

Neither of them make sense do they? They can't explain properly why they disagree with the amendment.

No they don't make sense. Are they saying that some ID will be on verified biological sex, others on gender? What's the point of having any ID if the criteria isn't uniform. And isn't even accurate?
Age has to be accurate but biological sex which is surely more important doesn't?

My MP seems to be arguing about privacy. But I suggest that if you're keeping your true identity private then it's not any form identification.

My Labour MP has also replied and it’s not the same standard letter either:
”I welcome that this legislation has undergone rigorous parliamentary scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I believe this important Bill will ensure that anyone who wants to use digital ID services can do so with confidence. Its provisions will free up vital time for front-line workers and relieve people from unnecessary and time-consuming admin. I am confident it includes strong safeguards to ensure people’s data is properly protected.

On 7 May 2025, the Bill returned to the House of Commons where a number of New Clauses were proposed from members of all parties. This included New Clause 21, which you recently raised with me.

New Clause 21 proposed the Secretary of State issue regulations to all public authorities to record sex data accurately, in every circumstance where sex data is collected, as sex was defined by the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers, meaning biological sex.

In short, this clause would have mandated the recording of sex at birth across all public authorities, including those where biological sex is inconsequential and regardless of whether someone has a gender recognition certificate. I do not see this as an appropriate use of people’s personal data.

Upon the vote, I joined with all my Labour colleagues in voting down NC21. I did so on the basis that whilst data on both biological sex and gender identity should be accurately recorded, it should only be done so when necessary and by relevant bodies and not mandated across all public authorities.

Whilst the Supreme Court made its decision, which I welcome for bringing clarity, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is still revising its code of practice, which will then go through governmental review. I appreciate many involved, and many who care deeply about this issue, will want clarification as soon as possible, but also that as this is a complex area, this must be a thorough process.

I will continue to back the Government in its work to protect women. I support its mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and to raise confidence in the police and criminal justice system. I also support this Government’s commitment to protecting trans people, such as through a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, and its work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime in England and Wales.

Finally, I would like to reassure you of my ongoing commitment to supporting the rights of women and of trans people and all those with protected characteristics.”

This is the key paragraph I think: “Upon the vote, I joined with all my Labour colleagues in voting down NC21. I did so on the basis that whilst data on both biological sex and gender identity should be accurately recorded, it should only be done so when necessary and by relevant bodies and not mandated across all public authorities. ”

Does it sound to you like she doesn’t understand how Digital ID will actually work? I thought it allowed the user to reveal only those parts of their ID that were relevant in the particular instance. So if asked for ID when there is doubt about someone’s right to use a changing room their Sex ID could be shown and on hiring a car their sex ID would not need to be shown.

What point are you lot trying to make?
It should be an offence to lie about your biological sex on the internet?
Dont understand?

I should think it should be compulsory to have your biological sex accurately recorded

Men present different with heart attacks men don't need a cervical smear etc etc then there is the whole keeping prisons straight for everyone's safety a transman in a male prison would be a disaster also if a "man" is pregnant they arnt entitled to maternity leave and the protection being a biological woman would give them

Biology matters its protective

The point were trying to make is we emailed our MPs asking for biological sex to be recorded accurately on digital ID, (the internet) and they voted against it - so in short they are in favour of 'lying about biological ' sex in many circumstances

@Theunamedcat
And when applying for services and jobs that are exclusively for women