Technology minister Sir Chris Bryant said this could create ‘legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency’
MPs have rejected a contentious proposal to require public authorities to record data on the basis of biological sex only, dismissing it as an approach that could lead to privacy violations and legal complications.
The amendment, tabled by Conservative MPs as part of the ongoing debate on the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Bill, sought to mandate public bodies to gather and report sex data using terms such as “sex at birth”, “natal sex”, or “biological sex”.
The measure, however, was met with significant opposition in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Technology minister Sir Chris Bryant warned that enforcing such a policy across the board could violate individuals’ rights to privacy and would conflict with existing legislation and precedent.
Sir Chris told MPs, “We believe the concerns regarding how public authorities process sex and gender data should be considered holistically, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings and the specific needs of different authorities. This is not a simple one-size-fits-all issue.”
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. While I understand the reasons behind tabling the amendment, I fear it would only create legal confusion, uncertainty and inconsistency.”
Green MP Sian Berry also voiced serious objections, describing the proposed amendment as “deeply concerning” for her Brighton Pavilion constituents. “This attempt to enforce biological sex-only data collection would constitute a gross violation of privacy rights,” she said. “It risks the mass outing of trans people, which is not only morally indefensible but also dangerous.”
Berry went on to say that parts of the amendment were so intrusive that they appeared to propose reversing historical gender marker changes, which she described as “frighteningly authoritarian”.
However, the Conservative backers of the amendment insisted it had been “misrepresented”. Shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer defended the measure, claiming it was aimed at clarity and legal duty rather than exclusion.
“Public authorities must collect data on protected characteristics to meet their obligations under the Equality Act,” Dr Spencer said. “Our amendment simply makes this clear and builds in data minimisation principles to protect privacy. There’s no outing of trans people here. But where sex data is collected and used, it should be based on biological reality.”
Despite these reassurances, the Government maintained its stance against the amendment. Ministers argue that current guidance already provides a robust framework for authorities to balance data collection needs with privacy protections.
Following the debate, MPs voted down new clause 21 by a margin of 266, with just 97 in favour and 363 against.
The result marks a further stage in the progression of the Government’s Data Bill, which aims to modernise how data is used and accessed by public bodies and private institutions, while aligning with human rights and privacy obligations.
More Read
The debate over biological sex data continues to be one of the most polarising topics within wider discussions around gender identity and public policy. While some campaigners argue for the collection of sex-at-birth data to ensure accurate healthcare and crime statistics, others see such moves as veiled attacks on transgender rights.
The Government has pledged to keep the issue under review, with Sir Chris Bryant noting the importance of future consideration. “These are not decisions to be made lightly,” he said, “and they must be approached with care, evidence, and compassion.”
Would you like this styled for a publication or used in a press release format?
