This post is part of the Digital ID can’t be gender self-ID campaign |
Digital identities: We have to get this right
On 21st January, Lord Patrick Vallance KCB, the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, told the House of Lords in a debate on the Data (Use and Access) Bill that for digital identities to work:
“We have to have a single version of the truth.”
But he wasn’t clear if that truth was about sex or “gender identity” and he didn’t address the problem of the unreliable records held by public authorities.
Asked about how the government’s digital identity and attribute verification system can work if it relies on records held by public authorities such as HM Passport Office and the DVLA, both of which are based on gender self-ID, he gave an assurance that “the government already support and prioritise the accuracy of the data they store”. But he avoided saying the word “sex”.
Peers were unconvinced with this reassurance, and so two amendments to address the problem were passed, without support from the government. One further amendment, which would provide for a “data dictionary”, will be debated next week.
After that the bill will go back to the House of Commons, where MPs may take these amendments out again. Nevertheless an important marker has been put down: peers have recognised that getting this right matters, and the government has responded by saying that it is committed to data accuracy. Now the devil is in the details.
Lord Lucas, introducing the amendments, highlighted that once government-backed digital-identity apps are in widespread use for age verification in pubs and clubs, they are likely to be considered as a way to resolve disputes about who is allowed into women’s toilets.
He also raised the issue of nursing and domiciliary care, where many people want same-sex care. But the NHS does not currently keep accurate records of the sex of medical staff, and treats men who identify as women as if they really are women.
Lord Arbuthnot pointed out that people can change the sex on their passport and driving licence on request, without even having to get a gender-recognition certificate (GRC).
“That means that, over the last five years, at least 3,000 people have changed their passports to show the wrong sex. Over the last six years, at least 15,000 people have changed their driving licences. The NHS has no records of how many people now have different sexes recorded from those they had at birth. It is thought that perhaps 100,000 people have one sex indicated in one record and a different sex in another. We cannot go on like that.”
He described further consequences of these inconsistent records for the digital verification system: people who have changed their sex records will be flagged up as “synthetic identity” risks because they have mismatched records, and may have illnesses misdiagnosed and treatments misprescribed.
Lord Clement Jones, for the Liberal Democrats, said he hoped the government would give assurances about data accuracy but that he did not want to “turn this into a battle and a culture war opportunity” and would therefore not support the amendments.
The Science Minister, Lord Vallance of Balham, said: “I am absolutely behind the notion that the validity of the data is critical. We have to get this right.” But he went on to suggest that it was a question about “gender identity”.
“On the specific point about gender identity, the Bill does not create or prescribe new ways in which to determine that, but work is ongoing to try to ensure that there is consistency and accuracy.”
Setting out further information he said that the Central Digital and Data Office has started work on developing data standards in a “domain expert group” with representatives from 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 to ensure consistency across organisations, and specific pieces of work are going on relating to gender in that area.”
Data-protection legislation, he said, would ensure that these public bodies keep personal data accurate. The problem he skated over is that none of these organisations currently record sex accurately, and the Information Commissioner, which is the relevant regulator, has said nothing about it.
Lord Lucas had raised this systemic failure earlier during the debate:
“What are these organisations doing, knowingly recording untruthful data? How do they manage that under the GDPR? What rights do they have to hold data that they know to be wrong? It seems astonishing to me that this has grown up.”
Lord Lucas concluded:
“However expert the consideration the Government may give this through the mechanisms the Minister has described, I do not think they go far enough.”
We will be writing to Lord Vallance, offering a meeting to explain the problem with inaccurate sex data and how it can be resolved.