Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, I turn to Motion 43A from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He has worked tirelessly on this issue. We understand the argument that he is making and we supported his amendment on Report. The amendment that he has brought forward today is an altered version which is intended to tighten up this definition. I of course appreciate and recognise the Government’s concerns to avoid burdening researchers with unnecessary admin. I am not yet satisfied that we have the right balance here between regulatory burden and public good. We still feel that it is crucial that Ministers resolve this, and we will therefore support the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in the Lobbies if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I intend to test the opinion of the House when Motions 32A and 52A are called.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is right that it is essential that data collected needs to be accurate and that that applies to data on sex as well as on gender. He is also right that the passport does not contain reliable data on sex, and I am grateful to him for making that clear. I am also grateful to him for the discussions that he has had with me and for the discussion that the Secretary of State had with Sex Matters and me, but what is the solution to this? In the absence of any reliable document, how is a care home to ensure that a person who is to provide intimate care for an elderly woman, who has understandably demanded that such care be provided by a woman, will actually be provided by a woman?

In the absence of anything else, I suspect a care home will have to fall back on the passport, which, as we have all agreed, is unreliable. My noble friend’s amendment goes some way towards answering this, and I shall support it. It may have flaws. The Minister said in one of our meetings that it would invalidate our existing passports. I am not sure about that but, if it is right, can the Minister propose a minor amendment to my noble friend’s amendment to sort out that problem?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will speak to Motion 32A. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his confirmation of the Government’s welcome of the Supreme Court ruling and his welcome of the Sullivan report. I also very much welcome the words that he has used today and thank him for the discussions that we have been able to have.

Can he confirm that where the Equality Act allows for a women-only space, any digital IT system used for that purpose would refer to biological sex as the relevant information? With regard to public authorities, I assume that organisations such as Sport England and the GMC are counted as public authorities because they are statutory. At the moment the GMC does not record the biological sex of doctors, only the gender. When that also goes digital, will it be confined to biological sex so that, again, patients can know the sex of their physician, assuming that it will be digital? I think that the Minister understands the questions I am posing and that his wording does give that reassurance, but any clarity would be welcome.