Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Cash]

438B: After Clause 166, insert the following new Clause—
“Recording of biological sex in police data(1) Every police force in England and Wales must, in respect of any individual who is arrested, charged with an offence, or issued with a caution or penalty notice, record the biological sex of that individual.(2) For the purposes of this Act, “biological sex” means—(a) the male or female sex recorded at birth, or(b) where a Gender Recognition Certificate has been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the sex recorded on that certificate.(3) Where official documents presented at the point of arrest do not reflect the biological sex as defined in subsection (2), the discrepancy must be noted separately. (4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to ensure consistency of recording and to prevent reliance on administrative records altered on the basis of self-identification alone.”

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 438B, the wording of which is intended to be replaced by Amendment 438EF. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for supporting this amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for reminding us about the general direction of travel taken by the Government in this area: the views expressed by the Home Secretary and others over the last six months about improving data collection and, again, in the White Paper, the objective to make data collection more consistent nationally. All of that is extremely welcome.

Sex is a foundational principle in crime. By that I mean the sex of an individual is a primary determinant of both offending patterns and victimisation risks. So, it is a crucial piece of information in terms of the overall justice system at every point. For example, 98% of recorded rape offenders are male, and roughly nine in 10 suspects in serious violent offences are male, and those proportions have remained significantly consistent over time. This information underpins offender profiling, multi-agency public protection arrangements, domestic abuse risk models, custody practice and the Government’s own crime strategies, as we have just been hearing. If sex were not a material variable, none of those systems would function as they do.

Despite this, at the moment there is no consistent national standard for what sex means in police recording systems. In some forces it means biological sex, in others it may reflect self-declared gender. In others, the two are conflated or left ambiguous. In some systems, records can be altered without clear audit. The same offender committing the same offence can therefore be recorded differently depending on the force or the system. That produces incoherent national datasets, undermines comparability between forces and also degrades—talking about AI and information collection—trend analysis.

This is a massive problem, because police data is the entry point for the entire criminal justice system. It feeds directly into that risk assessment, offender management, safeguarding decisions, prison allocation, probation supervision and national crime statistics. If the data is unstable at the point of entry, everything downstream is compromised. It is not just my view; this concern has been reinforced by repeated warnings from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and the Office for National Statistics, which have consistently found that police-recorded crime data is highly sensitive to inconsistent recording practices.

Where the system is already struggling with data quality, it is incredibly important that the core variables are clear, standardised and grounded in the facts. It is not a hypothetical situation and we know that Scotland has already tested the alternative and made the necessary changes. For several years, Police Scotland, like forces in England and Wales, was recording sex in the basis—at times—of self-declared gender, including for suspects in sexual offences. The result was that biological males charged with rape could be recorded as female, rendering national statistics unreliable and damaging overall public confidence in the system. After sustained scrutiny, it announced in October 2025 that biological sex would be recorded for crime and policing purposes, with any transgender status recorded separately where relevant. Operational reality forced that correction, which has been welcomed by the public.

The independent experts have also supported that measure. The Government-commissioned review led by Alice Sullivan found that public bodies, including justice agencies, have allowed sex to be redefined or replaced, which degrades the data quality. The conclusion is very clear in her review. In all areas, including crime, sex should mean biological sex, and, where gender identity is recorded, it should be recorded separately, not substituted. Murray Blackburn Mackenzie’s analysis showed that, once sex recording drifts from biological reality, crime statistics become unreliable, contested and incapable of supporting sound policy or public trust. When one thinks about the very small numbers of women in the numbers I have just related in respect of violent offences, for example, one can see that wrong data could massively skew this.

The same issue arises in offender risk. Official Ministry of Justice analysis shows that men who identify as women have offending profiles aligned with the male offender population; trans women and men have the same offending profile, including for violent and sexual offences. To be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that trans women are in any way more inclined than the average man to commit offences, but in population profiles, the same rate of offences is perpetuated within that population—male pattern violence does not change through identity declaration. When men are recorded as female in police data, male violence is understated, female offending is overstated and risk analysis is distorted. This really matters for repeat offender analysis, escalation risk and, most importantly, safeguarding.

We have already seen the consequences of ignoring biological sex in custodial settings. In England, we have had assaults occurring through the placement of men in the female prison estate. The Government responded to this by tightening allocation rules, explicitly re-anchoring decisions in biological sex and risk assessment. That policy recognises the basic truth that biological sex is a material safeguarding factor in criminal justice. That is a well-established principle among criminologists. Police data is the upstream source for those decisions.

This matters massively for the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy relies on police-recorded crime data to measure prevalent trends and progress. It rests on two empirical facts. Women and girls are disproportionately the victims of certain crimes—I hope there is no one in this House who would dispute that—and those crimes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. If police data cannot reliably identify male offenders because sex has been replaced by gender identity then progress cannot be measured and accountability collapses.

There is nothing in this amendment that would alter how the police should interact with transgender people or that would prevent gender identity being recorded separately where operationally relevant. It does not seek to change how individuals are treated. It simply seeks to ensure that biological sex is not lost or overwritten, because all the evidence shows that it matters. A criminal justice system that cannot accurately record the sex of offenders simply cannot accurately analyse male violence or protect women effectively. That is why I beg to move this amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have enthusiastically added my name to Amendment 438B, now replaced by Amendment 438EF, on the recording of biological sex in police data to prevent reliance in administrative records on self-identification and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has laid out the arguments with great clarity and precision, and I appreciate that. In the past, I have tabled similar amendments to previous Bills. Unfortunately, my attempts were far less elegantly argued than hers, but they were rebuffed, as though I was motivated by some ideological attempt at undermining inclusion policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that I want ideology out of data and data collection.

I think there is a slightly different atmosphere now, and I hope that we can have this discussion. Since then, the Supreme Court’s clarity on equality law in the distinct category of biological sex in relation to single-sex provision gives us an important marker. We have had the Sullivan review, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunak’s Government. Its themes were broadly welcomed, I think, by the present Government, which are to identify obstacles to accurate data collection and research on sex and gender in public bodies and in the research system and to set out good practice.

I state at this point that we owe huge thanks to Professor Alice Sullivan for her 226-page review. It was a real work of public service. It found that the recording of sex and gender across the justice system and police forces is highly inconsistent and in a muddle, and therefore is not reliable. This matters, because anything that erases biological sex or confuses biological sex in official data in relation to crime is problematic. Many of the policies in the Bill, if they are to be effective, rely on evidence, and that evidence must therefore be based on reliable data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but that is a separate issue—it is about who is allocated to which duty at the police station, and it is perfectly reasonable for the police themselves to organise who conducts a strip search and who conducts a strip search on whom. That is not what the first or second version of the amendment is about; it is about an obligation on the police to make a determination of the biological sex of anybody they are arresting, charging or cautioning. It comes from noble Lords who, as I understand it, oppose compulsory digital ID that could conceivably require some determination at the point of registration. I applauded those compelling speeches last week from noble Lords about that being too much of an intrusion on the citizen who is innocent until proved guilty at the point of encounter with the police. How are the police going to do this?

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I have never spoken in this Chamber on digital ID; I want to make that clear for the record, because the noble Baroness used the plural in talking about all those present. I also want to come back on her very emotional intervention, for which I am grateful as she clearly feels very passionately about this. Most of us have more confidence in the police than she may be demonstrating, because a lot of this is common sense, as the public at large understand. Some 50% of the population are women and girls, and they deserve to be protected. The number of people we are referring to is very small, but among that number are some really bad actors. This is a foundational principle of our criminal justice system, so how does she square the emotional circle in saying that this is not possible without infringing rights?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, there was certainly a lot of work done. I believe that it was commissioned by the previous Government, so it overlaps from the previous Administration into ours. I am not sure that I can provide a concrete timeline from the Dispatch Box, so I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness with those details.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to everyone who has spoken and to the winding speakers today. It is such an important question, and it is such a pleasure to have a debate like this and to engage with former colleagues and noble Peers to discuss an often emotional or passionate issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have known each other for such a long time, but not everyone knows that. I believe that I may have referred to the noble Baroness with a pronoun during my speech, and I am very sorry if I did that; it was a lapse from knowing each other and I want to put that on the record. I am very grateful to her for speaking with her typical compassion and empathy for everyone—a testament to her time as the head of Liberty, and the principles that she has lived by ever since.

I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and I am very grateful to her for engaging in this debate and being present. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for citing the data, and noble Peers who supported the amendments. I am very grateful to everyone.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, referenced Scotland. I would like to end on that thought. There is, of course, a direction of travel by the Government, which we welcome and support, but in his response the noble Lord, Lord Katz, did not address what data is going to be collected in relation to sex. I know we are coming on to ethnicity next. I say to the Minister that this is an opportunity to grapple with this issue and to do something by accepting this amendment, which would really support the violence against women and girls strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also made some very sensible points about the common-sense approach of the police, and we have confidence in them to be able to act in a sensible way. For the record, there is no suggestion in this amendment that anyone would be embarrassed or outed. It is about the police recording the data, not publishing the data. We know that data, when the statistics are processed off it, is anonymised.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful for that last point. The point I raised was that the data is so small that if only two people had committed a certain offence in a year, they would be identifiable. That was the point the ONS made in its response to somebody else’s FoI request—I do not know whose—because of that identification and then breaching of data for the individual concerned.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

That has not concerned His Majesty’s inspectorate, the Ministry of Justice or, indeed, Professor Sullivan. In fact, they make the opposite point, which is that the small numbers of trans-identifying individuals—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Is the noble Baroness prepared to push this to a vote or withdraw? We have had the debate. There is no need to rehash the argument that we have already had.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

With enormous apologies, I was responding to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I would like to return to this subject on Report. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 438B withdrawn.

Moved by

[Baroness Cash]

438C: After Clause 166, insert the following new Clause—
“Recording of ethnicity in police data(1) Every police force in England and Wales must, in respect of any individual who is arrested, charged with an offence, or issued with a caution or penalty notice, record the ethnicity of that individual in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) The officer must record the police-observed ethnicity of the individual using the 18-category classification employed in the most recent Census for England and Wales.(3) Where the individual voluntarily states an ethnicity, the officer must also record the self-declared ethnicity, noting any difference from the police-observed ethnicity. (4) For the purposes of criminal-justice statistics, analysis, and publication under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the police-observed ethnicity shall be treated as the primary record.(5) The Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance to ensure consistent recording and the uniform use of the Census ethnicity categories across all police forces.”

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry—it is me again.

I very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for the White Paper, which I have skim-read—I will admit that I have not read it closely—and I welcome again its contents and direction of travel on this. I tabled this amendment because the White Paper does not go so far as making a statutory requirement around the reporting of data. It is my position that this is an opportunity for the Government to do that and, with one simple amendment, to make this requirement and enforce this consistency across all the reporting of the amendments.

This is not a new proposal. It is the 18-category standard proposal of ethnicity, which is a framework used in the UK census, first introduced nationally in 2001 and expanded in 2011 and 2021. That includes five broad ethnic groups: white mix, multiple Asian, Asian British, black African and Caribbean, black British and other, each with broad subcategories. The College of Policing, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services all recommend that self-defined ethnicity, not officer-led definitions or visual categories, be used in operational and statistical recording. In policing that is known as SDE, or the self-defined ethnicity standard.

Crucially, there is no statutory obligation to use this system, no uniformity across police forces and no enforcement if it is bypassed. That is the gap that this amendment seeks to close. The current reality is a patchwork of practices. Police officers are instructed to ask for self-defined ethnicity at various stages, but compliance with that is highly variable. In many cases they substitute visual shorthand, which is crude, unreliable and not comparable with either the census or the official data. Even where self-defined ethnicity is collected, the categories used are not always aligned with the full 18-category standard set.

We have a patchwork at the moment, with forces using different ways of defining ethnicity and not uniformly communicating or building a database. The result has been quantifiable gaps in current reporting. Victims’ ethnicity is often missing, undermining the understanding of harm. In 2023, His Majesty’s Inspectorate found that in 61% of all cases where a victim was identified, ethnicity was not recorded at all. That is not a technicality; it is a collapse of visibility over who is being harmed and how.

Similarly, stop and search data is increasingly incomplete. Home Office statistics show that in stop and search records, self-defined ethnicity is missing in 20% of cases. That is one in five encounters without proper identification, and that source is the Office for Statistics Regulation. Prevent referrals are particularly shocking and show chronic underrecording. Between 2015 and 2023, police failed to record the ethnicity of more than 33,000 Prevent referrals. I cannot imagine an area of policing and national security where the ethnicity of an individual referred might be more important.

Operational consequences for victims, offenders and public oversight also manifest from these absences. Victims go unseen if ethnicity is unrecorded; they cannot have services tailored to them, and violent crime prevention cannot be prioritised. We do not understand whether different communities are underreporting crime or, indeed, overreporting. In homicide—murder—data for the year ending March 2022, only 671 victims had their ethnicity recorded; the rest were either missing or excluded—that is from the Home Office’s own data reports. Without the full self-defined ethnicity data at each stage of police contact, we cannot fulfil our obligations under the Equality Act.

The 18-category of self-defined ethnicity is the gold standard. It has been highly commended by multiple public bodies. When the police rely on visual codes or simplified lists of their own, they often misclassify individuals. They lose comparability with the census or with NHS and education data, so there is no cross- reporting across our own public bodies. They also create a very dangerous vacuum where speculation and grievance thrive—we have seen that in media reporting of issues in the last few years, where tensions in communities build and demands are made for greater transparency.

The vacuum has happened in child sexual exploitation cases. In the Casey review in June 2025, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, reported that ethnicity data was missing in two-thirds of the cases. Public debate has become polarised about grooming gangs since, with both denial and exaggeration filling the vacuum where the facts and data should have been. In Prevent referrals, where ethnicity was unrecorded in the 33,000 cases I have just mentioned, communities have accused the state of Islamophobic bias; others say that Prevent is too soft. Again, there is no data to resolve the dispute or even have an informed debate on.

In high-profile arrests, where ethnicity is omitted—the Home Secretary herself has spoken about this—social media becomes saturated with speculation, particularly from extremist or far-right actors, and forces the police into reactive disclosures. The former Met officer, Dal Babu, has said that

“there will be an expectation for police to release information on every single occasion”

because there is such intense speculation from the far-right on social media. These vacuums of information and of data are really dangerous.

My appeal to the Government is that a statutory duty to record full self-defined ethnicity at every point of contact solves these problems and gives us standardised, comparable data to analyse and act upon. The costs would be minimal but the status quo is very expensive. If we do nothing and we do not require this accurate reporting, we have operational blind spots, cross- system breakdowns, reputational damage to the police, and litigation risk. It is also extremely difficult retrospectively to rebuild community engagement or to repair crises when the damage has been done and trust has collapsed.

Police leadership supports better recording. In September 2023, Steve Hartshorn, chair of the Police Federation, said that senior officers must be held accountable for failing to record victims’ ethnicity. It is not just a data issue; it is about accountability and fairness. In August 2025 the new College of Policing guidance supported the proactive release of ethnicity and nationality data where it strengthens trust and clarifies public understanding. In December 2025 senior police officials, including Gareth Edwards of the NPCC’s vulnerability knowledge and practice programme, spoke on this. I could go on. Noble Lords will already be familiar with some of them from past reporting on this very issue of transparency and trust.

It begins with visibility, a consistent system, and a mandatory requirement to record the data. I know that the Government’s sentiments and intentions are already in this direction of travel, and this is an opportunity to make it happen. I beg to move.

Debate on Amendment 438C adjourned.