For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers: Interim Update
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Interim Update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on 25 April; and whether the EHRC consulted the Government before issuing that Interim Update.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government did not receive advance sight or notice of this interim update from the EHRC. The Government had requested a meeting with the chair to discuss its approach to developing an updated statutory code of practice, which will reflect the implications of the ruling and support service providers. This meeting will take place soon. The EHRC will consult relevant parties on its revised code, and we expect it to do so widely and broadly, listening to diverse voices. We will then consider the EHRC’s updated draft code once it has submitted it.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I speak today primarily as a lawyer but also as the parent of a trans child, in the belief that these matters should and can be discussed in a non-partisan way, with respect and care for the rights of all involved. Does my noble friend agree that it would be wise of the EHRC to consult the Attorney-General about its intended revised legal guidance, given that the update issued last Friday evening contained legal inaccuracies that have caused consternation to real people living real lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The approach that my noble friend set out is precisely the one I outlined last week in responding to the statement. The Government have set out our expectation that service providers follow the clarity that the ruling provides. The EHRC’s interim update provides a perspective on how the judgment and Equality Act are practically applied in some areas; it is a snapshot reflection, rather than full guidance. The EHRC has announced that it will update its code of practice and has committed to seeking views from affected stakeholders; I am sure that it will consult widely on this. I add that the application of the Supreme Court ruling to different services and settings is complex. It requires careful work to ensure that we provide clarity for a wide range of varied service providers of different kinds and sizes so that they have confidence in how they apply the Equality Act on a day-to-day basis.
“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The violence and abuse received by those women who took forward this action and by others who have taken this position is wholly unacceptable, as is the vandalism of statues that we saw over the weekend. We have already condemned that in the strongest possible terms, and we support action being taken by the Metropolitan Police on that. This is a debate that has not always been carried out in the spirit of respect, recognising the enormously sensitive and difficult issues, and I hope that from now on we will be able to do that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, once again I declare my interest as the parent of a trans child. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the exclusion of trans people from all single-sex spaces; rather, it declares that, provided an organisation makes a proportionate decision, then that will not be unlawful. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that these are complicated issues, which involve balancing rights and risks? Does she also agree that what is needed now is calm consideration, on a case-by-case basis, so as to ensure that all our fellow citizens feel safe and are protected?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, where single-sex spaces are being provided, they will be provided on the basis of biological sex. That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis.
Universities: Free Speech
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that we have robustly defended academic freedom. We believe that universities are places where academics need to be able to express and research contested ideas, where individuals need to be able to express lawful speech, and where that freedom of speech needs to be respected. We will continue to ensure that that is the case. Universities are autonomous organisations, but I am sure that they will have heard the point made by the noble Baroness about spending their money.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lady Levitt next and then from the noble Lord, Lord Young, after that.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a parent of a trans child. Does the Minister agree that, in the exercise of everybody’s inalienable right to lawful free speech, it is in the interests of all concerned that publicly stated views about these matters are given in a measured way that enables mature and informed discussion about a challenging issue?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is exactly right: it is wholly possible to carry out the sort of important research that the noble Baroness referenced, including in the area of gender-critical research, and to treat trans people with the respect that they deserve and ensure that they are able to play their full role in our society.