MPs have rejected a bid to force public authorities to record sex data purely based on biological sex, amid concerns it would lead to the “mass outing of trans people”.
The Conservatives had put forward proposals to amend the Data Bill to require sex data to be collected only on the basis of “sex at birth”, “natal sex” or “biological sex”.
Technology minister Sir Chris Bryant said this could interfere with people’s right to respect for private and family life, and create “legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency”.
Green Party MP Sian Berry described the Conservatives’ bid as being “of serious concern” to her Brighton Pavilion constituents.
Speaking in the Commons, she said the move would “constitute a gross violation of privacy rights by creating a mass outing of trans people”, and warned that part of the proposal “goes so far as to seek to revert historical changes made to someone’s gender marker”.
Shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer said the amendment had been “misrepresented” during the debate.
He added: “Public authorities must collect data on protected characteristics to meet their duties under the Equality Act, our amendment puts this clear legal obligation into effect and builds-in data minimisation principles to preserve privacy.
“There’s no outing of trans people through our amendment, but where public authorities collect and use sex data, it needs to be biological sex data.”
Concluding the debate, Sir Chris said: “We believe the concerns regarding 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.”
He added: “The proposals have the potential to 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 in that given circumstance.”
Sir Chris continued: “While I understand the reason for tabling these amendments, I fear they would create legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency.”
MPs rejected new clause 21, with 97 voting in favour of it, 363 against, majority 266.
