Lord Lucas:

Moved by Lord Lucas

67: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—“Data dictionary(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations establishing the definitions and associated metadata for core personal data attributes, and may require that these definitions are used in relation to—(a) Part 2 of this Act (digital verification services);(b) Part 4 of this Act (registers of births and deaths);(c) Part 7 of this Act (other provision about use of, or access to, data);(d) personal data recorded by public authorities in general.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment is to ensure consistency of definition of key personal attributes across government and over time, e.g. definition of “sex”.

My Lords, if we are to live in a data-rich world, we really need a set of well-understood, good definitions for the basic information we are collecting. At the moment, age is about the only stable personal characteristic, in that we generally know where it comes from, where it is recorded and can trust it. Name has become unstable: people are using name changing to hide previous criminal convictions, because we do not have a system of linking one name with another. Residence is widely abused by people who want to get their kids into the school of their preference.

Disability, ethnicity, sexuality and religion are all self-identified. We really need to understand why we are basing policy on something that is self-identified and whether we are collecting the right information for the policy uses we are making of it, particularly when, in areas such as employment, we are encouraging people to make particular choices because they are favoured in the employment advertisements. There is a collection of information there which we really ought to make an effort to be clear about if we are to make proper use of it and understand data going down the decades.

The definition we ought to do something about now is the protected characteristic of sex, because the misuse of sex and its conflation with gender has caused a whole suite of disadvantages and corruptions in the system. Basically, sex is simple: there are only two sexes. For the huge majority of humans, you can easily determine which sex they are. There are some for whom it is harder, but there are still only two sexes. We are in a situation where we record sex and use it to provide safe spaces for women, to have female sports, to know which prison to put someone in, to know how to record crime and, presumably, to know what action to take as a result of it.

Sex and knowing how women are doing is a really important thing to collect accurately, because there is a whole suite of areas in which women have been historically disadvantaged, such as in employment. It is well known that the standards in medical care have been set on men, not women, which has led to a series of disadvantages. We need accurate data. To my mind, rules based on reality and truth that are then adapted to people are much better than rules based on the way we wished things were, then trying to reconcile that with the truth.

We would do better for everybody—women in particular, but also people who identify as trans—if we based our description of them, when it comes to sex, on the truth. We would provide better healthcare, better protection, a much easier attitude to integration into society and proper provision for them. We should seek to do this. Truth should be the base of how we collect data; we should really insist on that. We should not corrupt our data but adapt our practice. I beg to move.

My Lords, this one should be easy. Last week, we passed amendments that said that the public authorities, in recording data on matters including sex, should do so accurately. Some might think that that should not be particularly controversial. This amendment says that the Government “may make regulations” about definitions of that sort of thing—that is “may”, not must. It is a negative resolution, not a positive one. It is not difficult, so let us do it.

My Lords, I spoke on this before, and I will repeat what I said previously. The only way out of this one is to have two fields against someone: one that we will call “sex” and another that we will call “gender”. I will use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for this. “Sex” is what you are biologically and were born, and that you cannot change. There are instances where we need to use that field, particularly when it comes to delivering medicine to people—knowing how you treat them medically—and, possibly, in other things such as sports. There are one or two areas where we need to know what they are biologically.

Then we have another field which is called “gender”. In society, in many cases, we wish that people did not have to go around saying that they are not what they were born but what they want to be—but I do not have a problem with that. We could use that field where society decides that people can use it, such as on passports, other documents and identity cards—all sorts of things like that. It does not matter; I am not worried about what someone wants to call themselves or how they want to present themselves to society.

Researchers will have the “sex” field, and they can carry out medical research— they can find out about all the different things related to that—and, societally, we can use the other field for how people wish to project themselves in public. That way we can play around with what you are allowed to use in what scenarios; it allows you to do both. What we need is two fields; it will solve a lot of problems.

My Lords, it is clear that Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is very much of a piece with the amendments that were debated and passed last week. On these Benches, our approach will be exactly the same. Indeed, we can rely on what the Minister said last week, when he gave a considerable assurance:

“I can be absolutely clear that we must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules. That is why the ongoing work is so important”.—[Official Report, 21/1/25; col. 1620.]

That is, the work of the Central Digital and Data Office. We are content to rely on his assurance.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing his Amendment 67, which builds on his previous work to ensure accuracy of data. On these Benches, we agree wholeheartedly with him that the information we have access to—for example, to verify documents—must be accurate. His amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations establishing definitions under the Bill for the purposes of digital verification services, registers of births and deaths, and other provisions. Crucially, this would enable the Government to put measures in place to ensure the consistency of the definitions of key personal attributes, including sex. We agree that consistency and accuracy of data is vital. We supported him on the first day at Report, and, if he pushes his amendment to a Division, we will support him today.

Amendment 67, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require terms relating to personal attributes to be defined consistently across government data. The Government believe that public sector data should continue to be collected based on user needs for data and any applicable legislation, but I fully recognise the need for standards and consistency in data required for research and evaluation. Harmonisation creates more meaningful statistics that allow users to better understand a topic. It is also an important part of the code of practice for statistics; the code recommends using harmonised standards unless there is a good reason not to.

As I set out in last week’s debate, the Government believe that data accuracy is essential to deliver services that meet citizens’ needs and ensure accurate evaluation and research as a result of that. I will set out to the noble Lord some work that is ongoing in this space. The Office for Statistics Regulation published guidance on collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in February 2024, and the Government Statistical Service published a work plan for updated harmonised standards and guidance on sex and gender identity in December 2024 and will take into account the needs for accurate metadata. The Sullivan review explores these issues in detail and should be published shortly; it will be taken into account as the work progresses. In addition, the Government Digital Service has started work on developing data standards on key entities and their attributes to ensure that the way data is organised, stored and shared is consistent between public authorities.

This work has been commenced via the domain expert group on the “person” entity, which has representation from organisations including the Home Office, HMRC, the Office for National Statistics, NHS England, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice, the Local Government Association and the Police Digital Service. The group has been established as a pilot under the Data Standards Authority to help ensure consistency across organisations.

As I said last week, it is the Government’s belief that these matters are crucial and need to be considered carefully, but are more appropriately considered holistically outside this Bill. The intention of this Bill is not to define or remark on the specific definitions of sex or gender, or other aspects of data definition. It is, of course, to make sure that the data that is collected can be made available, and I have reiterated my point that the data needs to be both based in truth and consistent and clear. There is work going on to make these new regulations and approaches to this absolutely clear. As such, I urge the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am particularly glad to know that the Sullivan review will be published soon—I look forward very much to reading that—and I am pleased by the direction the Government are moving in. None the less, we only get a Bill every now and again. I do think we need to give the Government the powers that this amendment offers. I would hate noble Lords opposite to feel that they had stayed here this late to no purpose, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Ayes 120, Noes 105.

Amendment 67 agreed.