Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy
Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Carlile of Berriew(4 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, most children who appear before the criminal courts display evidence of serious educational needs and an alarming number of those children show signs of florid psychiatric illness. In the sunshine of very welcome reform, can the Minister assure us that we will not lose sight of the great clouds presented by those issues?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord knows from his experience about the range of traumas that young people, even those who have not been in care, may well be reflecting. As he says, severe mental health needs may be one of them. That is why we are introducing mental health support into schools at an earlier stage. It is why, through the Department of Health, there is investment in 8,000 new mental health professionals and the development of a mental health strategy to ensure that children and young people in particular are getting support with mental health challenges at an earlier and more effective stage.
For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers
Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Carlile of Berriew(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has been clear, and I have been clear. The noble Lord might want to suggest that we have not been, but I am afraid I think that we have.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do to restore the legitimate expectation of those who obtain gender recognition certificates? Section 9 of the 2004 Act says that a person’s gender
“becomes for all purposes the acquired gender”
in law, an expectation which has been smashed by the proposed guidance.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the particular issue he identifies was the subject of the ruling in the For Women Scotland judgment. That was an interpretation of the law as it had always stood; it is clear, and the code is now enabling providers to deliver on the basis of that. But it is also the case, of course, and in that ruling it was made clear, that the safeguards for people in the Equality Act on the basis of gender reassignment remain, and discrimination and harassment against people on that basis remain unlawful. The code makes that clear, in fact, and is helpful in delivering it.
Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment
Debate between Baroness Smith of Malvern and Lord Carlile of Berriew(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have not finished yet. In concluding, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her work in leading the EHRC. I suspect that this will not be the last time she asks questions about this issue in this House, and nor should it be.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will be at the point at which we have fulfilled the process that I have outlined to the House today. It will be at the point at which we can all be confident that what we provide in clarifying the application of the law will support providers in delivering for all those with protected characteristics, which is of course the role of the code. But the noble Baroness is right: I was clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the clarity of the law and the requirement for all to be following it at this point. That is the position taken by the Prime Minister in the last week, and that is what everybody should be doing.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the current unclarity arises not from the judgment of the Supreme Court but from the rushed and muddled unclarity of the code provided by the EHRC? Does she agree that we must now make sure that we do not inadvertently create an undefined third category, who could be difficult for providers to deal with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The theme of my responses today to the questions asked is precisely to try to follow the legal and correct process here, and to avoid legal uncertainty for providers in the application of the law and the use of the code in doing that. It serves nobody—it serves none of the people whom those in this House and more broadly understandably feel passionate about—if this Government are rushed by political considerations into publishing a code which will not do the job it needs to do for the most vulnerable people. That is at the heart of the process we are following, and at the heart of our commitment to serving those people.