New Clause 21 of the Data (use and Access) Bill was concerned with directions to public authorities on the accurate recording of sex data and I have been contacted by some constituents who are concerned about the potential impact on transgender people.
Sex (male or female), like age, is a key fact about people. Sex is not the same as gender identity and is recognised as a fundamental demographic variable affecting a wide range of health, social and economic outcomes.
Last year, the previous Government commissioned Professor Alice Sullivan to conduct a much-needed independent review of the accuracy of public data on biological sex and gender. Professor Sullivan was tasked with identifying obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and on gender identity and setting out good practice guidance.
I am very grateful to Professor Sullivan for her work, the first part of which was published by the Government earlier this year. It makes for damning reading – people’s cancer screenings have been missed and criminal convictions overlooked because public bodies have conflated the concepts of biological sex and gender. Statistics on employment, health, crime and education have all been affected. Public bodies should be collecting data based on biological sex so it is safe, accurate and reliable. It is data that is needed often, in situations such as healthcare, sport, single-sex services, safeguarding, consent and equality monitoring. For example, in the NHS, there is a real risk to patients when doctors are not aware whether someone is male or female, especially when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific callings for screenings, including cancer and safeguarding.
As the draft UK Data (Use and Access) Bill (the “DUA Bill”) reaches its final stages, the House of Commons and the House of Lords were still debating several key issues. We, as the Official Opposition, tabled amendments to the Data Bill which would have required the Labour Government to accept Professor Sullivan’s recommendations, ensuring police forces and doctors accurately record the sex of offenders and patients and tighten up best practice in light of valid safeguarding concerns. Recording biological sex is a common-sense position so it was disappointing Government MPs voted against our proposal to accept these independent recommendations despite the fact the Labour government has said, on multiple occasions, it supports both the Supreme Court ruling and the findings of the Sullivan Review on sex data.
Shadow Technology Minister, Dr Ben Spencer MP speaking for the Opposition, 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.”
The Bill was passed to the House of Lords to debate and two similar amendments, aiming to ensure the accurate collection of data for legitimate and clearly defined purposes, based on a clear definition of biological sex, were backed by most peers. On May 14, the House of Commons received a program motion, urging it to deliberate on the amendments proposed by the House of Lords on May 12, 2025, including introducing requirements for ‘sex data’ to be collected in the context of digital verification services. The Commons considered the Lords’ message on Wednesday 14 May here:
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] - Hansard - UK Parliament
and returned this Bill to the Lords for further consideration which they have now done.
Despite having cross party support in the Upper Chamber, and still strongly believing their amendments to be necessary to prevent generating corrupt data sets, the Lords decided not to insist on its on-going disagreement with the Commons, in recognition of the core principle of the Lower Chamber’s parliamentary supremacy. In response to this, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business & Transport and the Department for Science, Information and Technology, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) stated very clearly,
‘Where a public authority is using a DVS, it remains the case that a contract will have to be entered into. This will again set out what types of information the DVS will be able to make checks against and for what purpose. This will ensure it is explicitly clear what information is being verified when a DVS relies on public authority data released through the information gateway. I hope this reassures noble Lords that gender data could not and would not be used to verify biological sex. Similarly, individuals would not be able to reuse a digital ID verifying gender to verify biological sex.’
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] - Hansard - UK Parliament
This Labour Government needs to decide if the DVS system is to provide accurate data or not. If it is, we need an unequivocal, system-wide definition and unreliable, inaccurate data sources would need to be excluded from the DVS system. This now includes a variety of public agencies like the DVLA, the NHS, HMRC and the Passport Office which have allowed people to change their recorded sex on request. The inconvenient truth is that the proposed Digital Verification Services framework cannot be an accurate source of data on sex, which the Labour Government agrees it must be, while allowing the current practice of conflating gender identity with biological sex to continue.
As Professor Sullivan has made clear, this is not an either-or between sex and gender. Where it is appropriate, separate data can be collected on transgender and gender-diverse identities. Amendment 21 would still give transgender people privacy and control over their sex data where that data is not needed, for example for age verification, renting accommodation or hiring a car, while maintaining the integrity, legality and provided by accurate records. Sex data would only be shared with consent. She believes, as do I, that:
‘Both people’s material circumstances and their identities are important to their lives. We know that sex matters, and we have much to learn about the ways in which gender identity matters, too. Rather than removing data on sex, we should collect data on both sex and gender identity, in order to develop a better understanding of the influence of both of these factors and the intersection between them.’
Why social scientists still need data on sex – not only gender identity
In a related matter, as Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, I was pleased to speak in the Westminster Hall debate on the e-petition 701159 on transgender people self-identifying their legal gender where I said,
‘It is important to ensure that women and girls have a safe and fair experience in life, that there is equality for all, and that we get the practical understanding that trans people need urgently, as the petitioner and many Members have raised. As we have heard today, this should not be a zero-sum game. There should be no failings in duties and people should be able to deliver on the judgment, but ultimately there should be a reassurance that all will be able to thrive in life respectfully and positively, with good guidance and support.’
You can access the entire transcript here:
Gender Self-identification - Hansard - UK Parliament
It’s clear some people hold strong ideological views that accurate data doesn’t matter and should be purely based on identity. However, I hope this full explanation shows why, despite understandable reasons for this, it is our view that this should be looked at and, indeed, make sure the Government sticks to its undertakings, and people’s health, safety and wellbeing are not compromised.
