No 10: ‘Common sense' for public services to have data on biological sex
It is 'common sense' for public services to have accurate information on biological sex, especially when it comes to healthcare, Downing Street has said.
The Health Secretary has already said he will act on the findings of an independent review that warned against conflating sex with gender identity when recording data.
Individuals have been able to change their gender marker on their NHS records while crime statistics have recorded some people's preferred gender rather than their actual sex, according to Professor Anne Sullivan, who led the review commissioned by the previous government.
The report said a trend had emerged to ask about sex and gender in a single question, and that they are 'distinct concepts' that should not be conflated or combined.
No 10 said that while gender should be recognised in some circumstances, the importance of biological sex when it comes to healthcare is 'common sense'.
'It's absolutely vital that public services across the board have got the right and accurate information and data when it comes to this topic, and this is particularly important when it comes to biological sex, for example (in) healthcare. I mean, it's just common sense,' the Prime Minister's official spokesman said.
He said there is 'existing guidance across the board' but the Prime Minister will look at specific concerns the report raised and follow up.
He stopped short of confirming that all public officials should be required to list biological sex in their data entry, saying there is 'different guidance issued to different sectors'.
He said it had been the Government's longstanding position that biological sex is vital to healthcare, in line with the Cass Review into gender identity services.
Civil servants are already taking action to make sure the right guidance is in place, he said.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting earlier said that having accurate data on biological sex is key for patient safety.
'The Sullivan Review underlines the importance of recording biological sex – not just for research and insight, but also patient safety,' he posted on X, formerly Twitter.
'Doing so does not prevent us from recording, recognising and respecting people's gender identity where these differ. We'll act on findings.'
Accurate data is especially important for preventative screening for cancer, a minister said earlier, while the Government said the report has been shared with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and other departments.
The report urged public bodies to collect data on both sex and gender identity to ensure that nationally-held data is accurate.
It recommended the Home Secretary orders police forces to record data on sex in their systems and stop allowing changes to be made to individual sex markers on the police national computer.
It also says new NHS numbers and changed gender markers should no longer be issued to individuals.
Doing so means data on sex could be 'lost', putting people at risk when it comes to clinical care, screening and safeguarding, as well as making it impossible to carry out research into gender transition over the course of people's lives.
It flags a safeguarding risk to children in particular and urges the practice be suspended 'as a matter of urgency'.
The Home Secretary is looking into the recommendation on data in police forces 'to make sure that we're keeping the public safe', defence minister Luke Pollard told LBC.
He also stressed the need for accurate public health data to have the 'right prevention in health activities' and said the Government would look to the report in its work to prevent cancers, in remarks to Times Radio.
'What is important is that we recognise that the accurate collection of data is vital, not just for the public health component, which much of this report, I believe, majors on, but across government.'
Prof Sullivan said there is no reason for a 'trade-off' between recording data on sex and gender.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there has been 'a confusion between sex and transgender and gender diverse identities', and attempts to 'merge these two things into one variable'.
Ms Sullivan said: 'It's this confusion around the word 'gender', which I think everybody used to recognise as simply a synonym for 'sex', and it's become something else – it's become a way of recording gender diverse identities.
'What I've argued in this report is that sex is really important, we should be recording it by default – transgender and gender diverse identities can also be recorded where that's appropriate.
'There's no reason to see this as a trade-off between the two. They're two distinct variables.'
She urged the Government to implement the recommendations 'across the board'.
'We can't just do it piece by piece, because this is everywhere.
'I've recommended that data on sex should be collected by default in all research and data collection commissioned by Government and quasi-governmental organisations, and I think implementing that would make a huge difference.
'I think we need leadership, because people are confused and they're anxious.
'This is not a partisan issue and it's very damaging when it starts to be seen as a partisan issue – it's a basic common sense issue, not a left-right issue.'
A Government spokesperson said: 'This Government is clear that the collection of accurate and relevant data is vital in research and the operation of effective public services, particularly when it comes to sex.
'We are grateful to Professor Sullivan for her work, which has been shared with relevant Government departments and public organisations, including the ONS.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to sanction Trump administration
Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a judge to put severe sanctions on the Trump administration, saying federal officials violated court orders to prove the steps they were taking to attempt to get the wrongfully deported man out of El Salvador for weeks, before he was returned to face criminal charges. It's the latest move in the court fight over Abrego Garcia and whether the Trump administration appropriately handled the political and legal maelstrom. Abrego Garcia's lawyers say the Trump administration's violations of the court have been 'egregious' because it repeatedly refused to provide any evidence around how it was complying with court orders. 'The Government did virtually nothing,' they said in a court filing late Wednesday night. 'Nearly sixty days, ten orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a week-long stay, and a failed appeal later, the Plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the Defendants took any steps, much less 'all available steps,' to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States 'as soon as possible' so that his case could be handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote. Documents the administration turned over to Abrego Garcia's team in recent weeks had largely been already in the public record, and assertions that the State Department was discussing his return with the Salvadoran government were vague, the lawyers added. Abrego Garcia was returned to the US last week to face new federal criminal charges that accuse him of trafficking undocumented migrants across states. He is currently in federal custody and has a court hearing set for Friday in Tennessee — where he is charged — so that he may enter a plea and for a judge to decide if he will remain behind bars in the US. But District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland had spent weeks before the indictment was unsealed demanding the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State and lawyers from the Department of Justice produce records and statements showing how the efforts were unfolding behind the scenes. 'The lengths the government has gone to resist discovery relating to these core questions raises a strong inference that the Government is trying to hide its conduct from the scrutiny of this Court, the Plaintiffs, and the public,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote. 'What the Government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys want Xinis to fine the government and some of its officials and either again order the administration to turn over documents or bring in a third-party 'special master' investigator to look at the administration's compliance with the court's orders. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador in March, despite a US immigration court order that said he could not be deported there for his own safety. Even President Donald Trump himself resisted stepping in, despite court orders that Abrego Garcia be returned and given due process. The case has become emblematic of the Trump administration's hasty attempts to send migrants out of the US without proper constitutionally-guaranteed proceedings. It's also among a small group of cases related to the hardline immigration approach where judges are now considering sanctions or even holding federal officials in contempt of court for failing to abide by judicial orders. Weeks ago Xinis told the Trump administration it must 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return and provide information about how it was doing so. She also ordered a handful of administration officials to sit for depositions. While those sworn interviews happened behind closed doors, the officials refused to answer many questions, citing privileges, Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote on Wednesday. 'More than 90 times, the Government instructed them not to answer on the basis of an asserted privilege,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers told the judge about the depositions. 'And when they did answer, the witnesses uniformly testified that they lacked personal knowledge of the very topics concerning which they had previously provided sworn declarations.' The lawyers also argue that the DHS' top attorney, acting general counsel Joseph Mazzara, may have given untruthful testimony. The Trump administration hasn't yet responded to the accusations made in court. CNN has also reached out to DHS for comment.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to sanction Trump administration
Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a judge to put severe sanctions on the Trump administration, saying federal officials violated court orders to prove the steps they were taking to attempt to get the wrongfully deported man out of El Salvador for weeks, before he was returned to face criminal charges. It's the latest move in the court fight over Abrego Garcia and whether the Trump administration appropriately handled the political and legal maelstrom. Abrego Garcia's lawyers say the Trump administration's violations of the court have been 'egregious' because it repeatedly refused to provide any evidence around how it was complying with court orders. 'The Government did virtually nothing,' they said in a court filing late Wednesday night. 'Nearly sixty days, ten orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a week-long stay, and a failed appeal later, the Plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the Defendants took any steps, much less 'all available steps,' to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States 'as soon as possible' so that his case could be handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote. Documents the administration turned over to Abrego Garcia's team in recent weeks had largely been already in the public record, and assertions that the State Department was discussing his return with the Salvadoran government were vague, the lawyers added. Abrego Garcia was returned to the US last week to face new federal criminal charges that accuse him of trafficking undocumented migrants across states. He is currently in federal custody and has a court hearing set for Friday in Tennessee — where he is charged — so that he may enter a plea and for a judge to decide if he will remain behind bars in the US. But District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland had spent weeks before the indictment was unsealed demanding the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State and lawyers from the Department of Justice produce records and statements showing how the efforts were unfolding behind the scenes. 'The lengths the government has gone to resist discovery relating to these core questions raises a strong inference that the Government is trying to hide its conduct from the scrutiny of this Court, the Plaintiffs, and the public,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers wrote. 'What the Government improperly seeks to hide must be exposed for all to see.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys want Xinis to fine the government and some of its officials and either again order the administration to turn over documents or bring in a third-party 'special master' investigator to look at the administration's compliance with the court's orders. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador in March, despite a US immigration court order that said he could not be deported there for his own safety. Even President Donald Trump himself resisted stepping in, despite court orders that Abrego Garcia be returned and given due process. The case has become emblematic of the Trump administration's hasty attempts to send migrants out of the US without proper constitutionally-guaranteed proceedings. It's also among a small group of cases related to the hardline immigration approach where judges are now considering sanctions or even holding federal officials in contempt of court for failing to abide by judicial orders. Weeks ago Xinis told the Trump administration it must 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return and provide information about how it was doing so. She also ordered a handful of administration officials to sit for depositions. While those sworn interviews happened behind closed doors, the officials refused to answer many questions, citing privileges, Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote on Wednesday. 'More than 90 times, the Government instructed them not to answer on the basis of an asserted privilege,' Abrego Garcia's lawyers told the judge about the depositions. 'And when they did answer, the witnesses uniformly testified that they lacked personal knowledge of the very topics concerning which they had previously provided sworn declarations.' The lawyers also argue that the DHS' top attorney, acting general counsel Joseph Mazzara, may have given untruthful testimony. The Trump administration hasn't yet responded to the accusations made in court. CNN has also reached out to DHS for comment.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reeves's public sector obsession will crush the economy
Rachel Reeves has cemented 'historic changes' to enlarge the British state, according to one of the nation's leading economists, with the battered private sector now looking at permanently higher taxes to support it. Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says it is hard to overstate the scale of the shift taking place in the economy this decade, as government spending mounts on public services, welfare and debt interest – and taxes rise to match. 'These are historic changes in the size of the state and the size of taxation in this country,' says Johnson. 'Over all of my lifetime up until 2020, taxes hovered around 33pc of national income. By the end of this decade they will be 38pc of national income. I cannot see them coming down. 'In economic history terms I think this decade will be seen as the decade in which the British state grew.' An older and sicker population suggests the state will only get bigger. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation, a think tank, shows that Reeves has put health spending on course to gobble up half of all the money spent on day-to-day services by the end of the decade. This is up from a third in 2010 and roughly a quarter in 1999. 'That is a huge increase. Everything else pales a bit in significance,' says James Smith, an economist at the Resolution Foundation. 'We are becoming ever more a health state.' The proportion may rise even more after Labour publishes its 10-year plan for the NHS later this year. Previous proposals outlined by the Tories suggested that making the health service fit for the future would require a 50pc rise in the number of staff to 2.4m by 2037. Such an increase would mean one in 11 workers in England would be employed by the NHS, compared with one in 17 in 2021, according to the IFS. Ruth Curtice, the Resolution Foundation chief executive, said the clear shift towards higher health spending constituted a 'major reshaping of the state'. Labour is using its gigantic parliamentary majority to push through such seismic change. Yet at the same time the economy is weakening, undermining Reeves's ability to pay for her grand spending plans. GDP dropped by 0.3pc between April and March, suggesting the strong growth seen during the first three months of the year was not the start of a sustained recovery. The Chancellor has blamed Donald Trump's trade war for knocking Britain off course, and it undoubtedly had an effect. However, there is no sense that Reeves has adapted her plans to cope with Trump's crusade, which has been known about for months. Furthermore, April's GDP numbers also show clear signs that it was Reeves, not Trump, who was to blame for the slowdown. The services sector performed particularly poorly, with retail struggling amid the sharp rise in employers' National Insurance contributions, the tax bosses pay on workers' wages, and the minimum wage. Unemployment is up and the number of people in work is down, another sign that this 'jobs tax' is weighing on hiring. Worryingly, Britain is relying more and more on public spending to keep the economy afloat. Recent analysis by the Bank of England shows that activity has essentially been driven by the public sector over the past two years. That's not a sustainable model for growth, particularly given the dire productivity in the public sector. Businesses are increasingly frustrated. Simony Emeny, the chief executive of pub group Fuller's, argues the private sector is being forced to work far harder than the public sector. 'Because of what the Chancellor announced last year, we have had to work really hard to make our businesses as efficient as possible and use technology well and to make sure that we are in a position where we can absorb some of these cost increases,' he says. 'If I look at the Government, I don't see that same drive to improve efficiency coming through.' He cited the rise in the number of civil servants, which has soared from below 420,000 in 2016 to 550,000 today. 'The [hospitality] sector is having to be forensic about costs just to navigate the challenges we face and I'm not seeing that same scrutiny from the Government. [They] need to be consistent about this,' says Emeny. 'They're putting a lot of pressure on business with extra costs. We're having to absorb that this year, and so is everybody else.' Fuller's and other businesses may have to absorb even more costs later this year. With pressure to spend yet more on healthcare and benefits, and amid scepticism that many of the plans set out in the spending review are realistic, economists believe more tax rises await in the autumn. Johnson, at the IFS, suspects the long freeze on income tax thresholds will be extended – a classic stealth tax, as workers end up paying more tax even if their pay only rises in line with inflation – meaning they become worse off over time. But that alone may not be enough. Andy King, a former senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Government's spending watchdog, says it is almost certain to slash its growth forecasts at the Budget in the autumn, in part because of Reeves's own policies. 'The immigration policy looks net negative for growth, employment rights need to be scored, the employer NICs and national living wage rises look to have done much more damage to employment than was allowed for,' he says. 'The writing seems to be on the wall for another fiscal hole in the autumn.' That points to yet another tax raid, despite the record-breaking £40bn of tax increases in the Budget last October, which was supposed to put the finances back on an even keel for the rest of this parliament. King suspects the Chancellor will have to ramp up the big taxes she has promised not to touch: VAT, National Insurance or income tax. 'Now that the spending plans have been inked in, it leaves fewer levers for restoring fiscal headroom. So it looks like a rock and a hard place for the autumn. Something important may have to give if there is a material fiscal hole to fill,' he says. 'That means either loosening the fiscal targets, which look very risky given the way the bond market is viewing the UK relative to its peers. Or it means breaking manifesto tax commitments which looks, as Sir Humphrey might say, brave, bordering on courageous.' Whatever form tax rises end up taking, it will extend what has become a well-established pattern under Labour: raid the private sector to pay for ever higher state spending. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
