
‘The Supreme Court gender ruling had given us clarity. Now this Labour law will torpedo that'
Henrietta Freeman is a quadriplegic 31-year-old who cannot speak and relies on around-the-clock care to help with just about every aspect of her life. Perhaps understandably, given the nature of that care, she insists on her carers being female.
But now she fears that a Government bill days away from becoming law will undermine her ability to guarantee that she is only cared for by someone who is biologically female.
'I need this care to maintain my comfort, dignity and safety,' she says. To Freeman, who has a neuromuscular condition which continues to worsen, Labour's bill is a 'threat to disabled women who require same-sex care'.
She's not alone in her concerns.
Women's rights campaigners have been warning ministers that the bill, which is intended to introduce a new digital ID system, will play havoc with the ability of companies such as gym chains and public bodies like the NHS and police to ascertain someone's sex – just after the Supreme Court ruling intended to bring much-needed clarity.
The bill will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves by using a new voluntary Government app that is linked to what the bill calls 'digital verification services' (DVS), backed by a government 'trustmark'. It will draw data from a number of sources but the bodies being presented with the app won't be able to tell which documents it is relying on.
That means that if the app states that the user is 'female', that information could, in theory, either be based on the sex stated on their passport or driving licence – which they could have arranged to have changed from their biological sex – or their birth certificate, which cannot be changed.
To worsen matters, says Helen Joyce, of the women's rights charity Sex Matters, under the new system the app will have to be 'treated as more authoritative than any pre-existing record – or the evidence of your own eyes.'
In practice, she says, 'if you have a man [seeking] gym membership and he has a digital ID saying he's female, you're going to have to accept that. Currently it's your choice what you would do with a passport with 'F' [for female] on it. It would be difficult to say no to him going into the ladies' changing rooms or toilets, but not impossible.
'But if you've signed up for the 'digital verification services' you will have to accept Government sources as authoritative.'
On Wednesday, the Conservatives attempted to amend the bill so that sex data would be taken solely from birth certificates. The amendment was defeated by 363 votes to 97, meaning the bill will now move onto its final stage – the third reading – before becoming law.
Tory MPs had previously warned that 'inaccurate data entrenched by the Bill' could 'pose a risk' to vulnerable people, but the MP for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, was among many Labour MPs who criticised the Opposition amendment, calling it 'a targeting of the trans community which is deeply regressive.'
Heather Binning, chief executive of the Women's Rights Network, agrees with the Conservatives' concerns. She says that the new law will essentially introduce gender self-identification – a system which involves the state adopting whichever gender an individual chooses to be known by – 'through the back door'. 'It flies in the face of the Supreme Court ruling,' she says. 'It will be mayhem if it goes thorough as it is. If official documentation says a man is a female with the new system, employers and others will be inclined to accept it. This part of the Bill needs to be scrapped.'
One King's Counsel (KC) specialising in equality law agrees that the digital ID 'is in danger of becoming a de facto gender recognition certificate', which allows individuals to legally change their gender.
For example, it could lead to incorrect medical treatment being provided for a person whose biological sex is recorded inaccurately. One GP explained how she had witnessed a woman who identified as a man receiving an initial diagnosis for an appendectomy, but when the consultant and anaesthetist later saw the patient they decided to ask about her biological sex. Having established that she was a biological woman, the clinicians reassessed her and she was confirmed to have had a gynaecological problem. As such, this lack of correct data could also put trans people at greater risk in a medical emergency. It could also cause a care agency to send a male nurse or care worker who identifies as a woman to provide intimate care to a female patient at home.
'The proposed Data Bill will put disabled people, particularly women, at more risk than they are already,' says Freeman. 'Every instance of a disabled woman being made to feel uncomfortable, or even worse, will be the responsibility of those who voted it through as well as the disability charities who have stayed silent.'
Alice Sullivan, the University College London sociology professor who wrote the Government-commissioned review on errors in the state's handling of data on sex and gender, warns that 'the thing with data is, garbage in, garbage out'.
'This Bill could be a really good opportunity to correct all these problems at source. If they implemented the recommendations of my review they would be correcting the data on the sex variable. Any data that is not reliable simply shouldn't be going into this system, because it will lead to contradictions - people can have different documents saying different things about their sex and you only want correct information.'
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology declined to comment.
The area this is likely to affect most acutely is healthcare. 'This feels potentially dangerous,' says Elaine Miller, a physiotherapist from Edinburgh and affiliate to ScotPAG, a health group of Scottish professionals advising on gender. 'It already happens that women require single-sex care and because care agencies are short staffed the women get sent a man. If the new rules mean biological men are recorded as women, that's still the same problem. If a woman asks for single-sex care it should be honoured and if a new system makes that more difficult to regulate then that's a new problem. If it's introduced as it is it could take years to fix.'
Many firms and public bodies might welcome the new ID system on the basis it is Government backed and therefore assumed to be trustworthy. But there are fears that some could use it to avoid any problematic decisions about single-sex care for vulnerable or elderly patients.
'There are plenty of areas in which sex matters – it goes far beyond toilets,' says the KC, who asked to remain anonymous. 'Of more concern is intimate care provision for people with disabilities, working in a rape crisis centre – people working in these fields need to know what the sex of the person wanting to work there is. They don't want to know what their gender identity is.
'It's preposterous to argue you can replace data about sex with gender identity. Gender is not a legal category so why would you need to record it? It would only be useful if you wanted to deceive someone about your biological sex and the whole point of having data and having this new ID app is to be able to prove things about yourself.'
Healthcare professions say that the recording of sex and gender have already become muddled within the NHS and that the bill is a recipe for worsening the problem. An employment tribunal in Scotland is currently hearing the case of Sandie Peggie, a nurse with 30 years' experience, who was suspended for alleged bullying and harassment after objecting to sharing a female changing room with a doctor who was born a biological man and identifies as a woman.
'The NHS needs to know which of its patients and staff are male and which are female in order to fulfil its public service equality duty,' says Samantha*, a director of service transformation at an NHS trust. 'If the data used for the digital ID is not accurate it drives a coach and horses through public bodies' duty of care. The law says this must be achieved via biological sex, but data sets that don't accurately record sex cut across all that. The same applies to chaperones for intimate care. That's unacceptable and potentially unlawful because the patient did not consent to it. The new ID scheme would make the operation of the NHS really difficult.'
Sally Wood, 57, an NHS therapist from Portsmouth, agrees. 'I work with very vulnerable people, including people with severe brain injuries,' she says. 'I became worried about how staff would present themselves as different to their biological sex because sex segregation is one of the primary forms of safeguarding we have. If we are lying to patients we are breaking our ethical principles. In the NHS they will record the sex as whatever an individual wants.'
The potential ramifications of the bill even extend as far as dating sites, on which it would be possible to create an account with Government-backed verification of a person's sex even though that would be the opposite of their biological sex. Campaigners say this could facilitate 'catfishing' – people online using deception to strike up relationships.
Those familiar with the Bill as it is currently written are concerned it paves the way for a scandal waiting to happen, akin to the SNP's endorsement of trans activism. In Scotland, Isla Bryson, a biologically male transgender rapist, was initially taken to a women's prison, and Nicola Sturgeon drew fierce criticism for refusing to call Bryson a man.
'There will be some kind of equivalent of the Nicola Sturgeon/Isla Bryson scandal where the whole country will go 'How did we get to this?',' says Samantha. 'And the politicians will just be left looking at their shoes. So let's not mess it up in the first place.'
'It will blow up in their faces eventually,' says Sullivan, 'It defeats the whole object if you just accept that some cases will be wrong.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
NHS gets an extra £29billion a year but waiting list targets may STILL be missed, health chiefs say
The NHS is unlikely to hit waiting time targets despite getting an extra £29billion a year in the Spending Review, health chiefs said last night. Economists described the real-terms rise as 'substantial', with the health service budget now equal to the entire annual income of Portugal. But patients were yesterday told to brace for cuts to services, with much of the extra cash set to be swallowed up by inflation-busting pay rises and higher drugs costs. Rachel Reeves told the Commons she is making a 'record cash investment' in the NHS, worth an extra 3 per cent a year in real terms. The Chancellor insisted this would lead to 'more appointments, more doctors and more scanners' as Labour seeks to deliver on its manifesto promise to get the NHS 'back on its feet'. But the settlement received a lukewarm response from NHS bosses, who said they would need even more money if the Government is to achieve its aim of treating 92 per cent of patients within 18 weeks of a GP referral by the end of this Parliament. Matthew Taylor, of the NHS Confederation, which represents health organisations, said: 'Difficult decisions will still need to be made as this additional £29billion won't be enough to cover increasing costs of new treatments, with staff pay likely to account for a large proportion of it. 'On its own, this won't guarantee that waiting time targets are met.' Sir Jim Mackey, chief executive of NHS England, told the NHS ConfedExpo conference in Manchester that the health service has done 'really well relative to other parts of the public service'. But he added: 'We all know it's never enough because of the scale of advancement, all the ambition, the day-to-day cost pressures... but I think everyone's starting to accept and understand we've got what the country can afford to give us. 'We really need to get better value for that money – it is broadly the equivalent of the GDP of Portugal, so it's a huge amount.' Government documents accompanying the Spending Review show that, on average, from 2023/24 to 2028/29, the NHS in England will receive 3 per cent real-terms growth in day-to-day spending, equivalent to a £29billion increase in annual budgets. The figures suggest Department of Health and Social Care spending will rise 2.8 per cent – less than the average 3.6 per cent seen in recent years. Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the NHS was the 'biggest winner' in the Spending Review and described the Department of Health as a 'behemoth'. But he added: 'Even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough. Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' Sarah Woolnough, of health think-tank the King's Fund, said: 'It is hard to see how all the things she [Ms Reeves] mentions – faster ambulance times, more GP appointments and adequate mental health services and more – can be met on this settlement alone. 'Particularly when large parts of this funding will be absorbed by existing rising costs, such as the higher cost of medicines... and staff pay deals.' However, she said the upcoming ten-year plan could lead to better, more efficient NHS services. According to spending review documents, the Government expects the NHS to deliver 2 per cent productivity growth each year, 'unlocking £17 billion savings over three years' to reinvest and improve patient care. Sally Gainsbury, at the Nuffield Trust health think-tank, said: 'Compared to settlements for other departments... the NHS deal looks generous. 'But seen in the context of all the promises made by the Government – to drive down waiting lists, shift care closer to home, rapidly improve tech – and the commitments to meet staff pay demands and rising costs of drugs, today's settlement soon melts away. 'With capital funding staying flat in real terms for the rest of the spending review period, it will be difficult for the NHS to invest in the technology and facility upgrades it needs to meet the Government's ambitious productivity targets.' The Government said it will also invest up to £10 billion in NHS technology and digital transformation by 2028/29, plus £6 billion to speed up tests and treatments. Scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres are among things the additional cash – part of the overall £29 billion – will pay for, with the aim of providing up to 4 million more tests and procedures in the next five years.


Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Vance says Trump doesn't want long-term feud with Musk
WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump was frustrated with billionaire Elon Musk, but doesn't want a long-term feud with the entrepreneur and big campaign donor, Vice President JD Vance said on Wednesday. Vance told reporters that he has spoken to both Musk and Trump about trying to make sure Musk is supportive of the president, adding that the Trump team was grateful for what Musk did early in the process of making government more efficient. Musk on Wednesday said he regretted some of the social media posts he had made about Trump, saying they had gone "too far," a gesture the U.S. president described as "very nice," in the latest sign of a tentative reconciliation between the two.


The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
This round-up of claims from the 2025 spending review has been compiled by Full Fact, the UK's largest fact checking charity working to find, expose and counter the harms of bad information. On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.