“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Smith of Malvern(5 days, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Statement, which we have not had the privilege of listening to in this House today, said that the ruling was not a zero-sum game. That is a phrase I have been using for quite a long time in this context, and I totally agree, but the practical repercussions of the ruling have been left to others to sort out—for women, trans people, non-binary, intersex and anyone else who may not pass muster through no fault of their own.
We need guidelines, as the noble Baroness has just mentioned, for the management of single-sex spaces and for institutions such as hospitals, the police, operators of gyms and so on. Then there are everyone else’s human rights, such as the right to privacy and to safety—if you are a trans woman being forced to use men’s toilets, for example—and not to be subjected to degrading treatment. How will the Government organise these guidelines? Can the Minister say what the timescale is? In the meantime, what is the advice to those who are now not allowed to use single-sex facilities? Are they to lose their right to public life, including as advisers to this House?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers. Throughout my life, not just as a Minister, I have campaigned and worked for women’s rights and for the need for single-sex spaces, including, given my great age, when it was not the mainstream concern that it has become now. Like many of my sisters on these Benches, some of my earliest political campaigning was for the single-sex spaces necessary in refuges and rape crisis services to protect and support women.
The Government will therefore continue as before, working to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, now with the added clarity of this ruling. We will continue our wider work with commitment and compassion to protect all those who need it, right across society.
This is a Government who will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always. We will support the rights of our most vulnerable, now and always, and on that there is no change.
However, this is an important judgment, long in the making. It began in 2018 when Scottish Ministers issued guidance on the definition of a “woman” in the eyes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That guidance stated that a “woman” in that Act bears the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010 and included trans women with a gender recognition certificate. For Women Scotland challenged that guidance, saying that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, so that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is a man for the purposes of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and last week the court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.
As both noble Baronesses have identified, there is now a need to ensure that this ruling is clear across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, is working quickly to issue an updated statutory code of practice to reflect this judgment, and we look forward to reviewing that code of practice in due course. It will, of course, be laid in front of Parliament for approval.
On some of the other issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on the Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education and Gender Questioning Children guidance that I think she was referring to, that draft was produced just before last July’s general election and before the response to the Cass Review recommendations. We are considering that carefully—including with stakeholders and in the light of the Cass Review—with the interests of children absolutely at the heart, and we will publish that guidance soon.
On the noble Baroness’s points about the data Bill, I know that those issues have been discussed at length in this House and in the other place. The data Bill does not change the nature of sex or gender reporting in the way in which she implied.
On hospital wards, given that the last Government presided over a 2,000% increase in mixed-sex wards, the noble Baroness is right that there is a problem with the dignity available to patients in single-sex wards. Given the clarity in this guidance, NHS England is now reviewing the guidance and working quickly to make sure that that is communicated properly to the health service. This Government’s investment in the NHS will help practically to ensure that all people can have the dignity and care that they need in the NHS.
Referring to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I also know and have heard from trans people, their families and friends who are worried in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, so I want to provide reassurance here and now that trans people will continue to be protected. As a Government, we will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime and review adult gender identity services, so that all trans people get the high-quality care they deserve. The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.
The Supreme Court verdict is about clarity and coherence in the eyes of the law, but along with that verdict the judges delivered a vital reminder. This is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. It is not about winners or losers, and it is not about us or them. Everybody in our society deserves dignity and respect. Those are the values that define a modern and compassionate society and the values that this Government will uphold.
Equality Act 2010: Diversity of Political Candidates
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Smith of Malvern(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have enormous respect for my noble friend and the leadership role that she has played in political parties—and, of course, in ensuring diversity. I too hope that she will not need to ask this Government as many times as she had to ask the previous Government, because we have made clear our commitment to implementing Section 106. We need to work through how we are going to do that and who will be included. I think it is right that something as important as this is done properly. I look forward to her challenge and her support as we take that forward.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we need to understand the picture fully, and while I am sure we are all gratified by the number of women Members of Parliament we have now, the story on other protected characteristics, including disability, race, and sexual orientation, is not so rosy. In answer to a very similar question in January, Anneliese Dodds responded by saying that the Government were looking at when they might be able to introduce this data, much as the Minister has done today. If the Minister cannot tell us today when this will be, can she reassure the House on what approximate date we will be able to introduce this legislation by?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness has found an interesting way to ask the same question again. I will try to find an interesting way to give the same answer. I recognise her point that Section 106 requires us, in commencing it, to think carefully—actually, exactly—about which protected characteristics will be included in the regulations. It is important that we give that sufficient thought, alongside political parties, of course, about how we will implement that.
There is nothing to stop political parties at this point, for transparency, publishing information about their own candidates. But, of course, the reasoning behind this piece of legislation is to ensure we get consistency; in doing that, we challenge ourselves as politicians, we challenge our parties, and we show to the country that those people who represent them reflect those whom they are speaking on behalf of.
Relationship, Sex and Health Education
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Smith of Malvern(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point about one of the areas where relationship, sex and health education can make an important difference. Education has a key role to play in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and it is therefore essential to the Government’s safer streets mission. We want to ensure that the revised guidance enables schools to tackle harmful behaviour and helps to ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate in schools. I commend the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues in supporting us to do that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that relationship and sex education in all schools includes medically accurate and evidence-based information about contraception and reproductive health?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is fundamentally important that what our schools teach is based both on the best interests of children and on factually accurate information. Ensuring that that is the case is part of the reason for making sure that we take our time on this guidance, and for ensuring that schools are supported to find the right sources of that information.
Sex and Gender: Official Data
Debate between Baroness Burt of Solihull and Baroness Smith of Malvern(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The reason why it is so important that we allow the independent statistical services to develop the question appropriately is precisely that it will be used more widely in other public services. Of course it is important that that has the confidence of those responding to the question and of the services being provided. To that extent, therefore, I share the noble Baroness’s concern to ensure that that statistical collection is robust and appropriate and is informing services, including the NHS, in a way that users need it to.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that—given the downgraded English figures, which gave the trans and non-binary population as 0.55%, and given that the figure we found for Scottish, Welsh, Canadian, USA and GB patients is 0.44%—we can conclude that the English census figures are not a million miles out and that the actual number of people in question is tiny in proportion to the amount of time we spend talking about them. Can we not, instead, use these figures to help design services appropriately for them, and move on?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is my first opportunity to answer a Question on this issue in this House, but I certainly take the noble Baroness’s point that it is important that we have accurate and respected statistics, but that we are also providing services to people on the basis of their needs, particularly for LGBT+ people, and that they are safe, included and protected from discrimination. That, along with protection of sex-based rights where necessary, is what this Government will focus on.