Sport: Supreme Court Ruling on Sex and Gender

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Supreme Court judgment provides us with some clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The priority now is for all of us to go forward, through the Equality and Human Right Commission’s code of practice and through the way we deal with this issue, not in a spirit of looking backwards or recrimination but in a way that enables us to ensure that this judgment is properly administered and represented in the changes that are made and to ensure that everybody in this quite sensitive area is treated with decency and respect. Looking forward is important now.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says

“we will not rush our response”,

which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is right that a whole range of different organisations are currently considering their practice. The Supreme Court ruling brings clarity about the definition of sex, and it is on that basis that a whole range of organisations, including the police, should be considering what changes are necessary.

Antisemitism on University Campuses

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will quickly soon turn to the topic of this vital debate, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, but I hope that noble Lords will indulge me if I make reference to our late colleague Lord Etherton, whose sad death at only 73 was announced today by the Lord Speaker.

Joshua Rozenberg reports that, when Lord Etherton gave a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

“in confident, fluent Hebrew, he told the story of his grandparents, arriving in the East End of London from the pale of settlement in Russia during the early years of the 20th century only to find more antisemitism in Britain. ‘My paternal great-uncle persuaded his parents to change the family name,’ he said. ‘And so Schliama Borrenstein became Seddon Llewellyn Delroy Ryan Etherton.’”—

at least it was not Del Boy.

“His great-grandparents, he added, would have been dumbfounded to see him delivering a lecture in Israel as the second most senior judge of England and Wales”.

So we have had some great progress in our country and society, which actually makes it even more shocking that, following the horrendous terrorist attack on 7 October perpetrated against Israeli victims by Hamas, a dramatic further increase in antisemitic incidents was seen in the UK as well as elsewhere. We have heard the figures tonight given by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, and others, recorded by the Union of Jewish Students, the Community Security Trust and the report today from StandWithUs UK—all of them very valuable.

Some of the antisemitic behaviour was associated with pro-Palestinian marches, with one of the most common forms of antisemitic harassment being students experiencing intimidation around protest events on campus. Expressions of support for Hamas and other proscribed terror organisations have been routine, with students being told, “Hamas had their reasons”, “If I was Palestinian, I would join Hamas”, and, “There is no space for Zionists on campus, not now, not ever”. Some were even told, “Your people should not be alive” —I think that by “your people” they did not mean Israelis but Jews.

There has been some criticism of the definition and examples of antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The Jerusalem declaration was drafted in response, with the assertion that because the IHRA definition was

“unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism”.

That declaration, which has academics in UK universities as signatories, asserts that neither

“Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism”

nor supporting

“arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea’”,

are antisemitic. That is already arguable, but when marchers shout, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”, this is not some calm academic dialogue about constitutional arrangements; it is an intimidating call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The IHRA definition stresses that

“criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”,

giving ample scope for criticism of any current Government or their actions. The bottom line is that freedom of expression is not a justification for harassment and that all points of view should be able to be expressed even when there is strong political disagreement relating to Israel and the Middle East.

Can the Minister say whether her discussions with vice-chancellors will result in serious and determined action to eradicate antisemitism on campuses while championing academic freedom—including in discussing Israel, the Middle East and Gaza, which I believe is absolutely possible?

For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers: Interim Update

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have been clear to this House, both today and last week, that the statutory code of practice that the EHRC is responsible for producing will be the legal basis on which there will be interpretation of the judgment. I welcome the noble Baroness the chair of the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring that there will be wide consultation on that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the EHRC has come under the most extraordinary and ill-informed abuse, as has its chair, personally. What more do the Government believe they can do to ensure that the independence and functions of the EHRC are properly understood?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that I have demonstrated today that the Government does properly understand them. As I said last week, it is important that this whole debate is carried out in a spirit of understanding the complexities of the application of some of these provisions and recognition that all groups need to be able to access services, but with welcome clarity on the areas covered by the Supreme Court judgment.

“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that all the main party leaders have accepted the Supreme Court judgment, including my own leader on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think it would be better if all leaders could express a welcome for the judgment itself, not just for the clarity it brings. I have two questions. How will the Government ensure not only that those single-sex facilities provided are kept single sex but also that service providers do not sidestep the provision of single-sex facilities by defaulting all the time to unisex provision? Secondly, do the Government agree that lessons need to be learned across the political spectrum about the need to safeguard all protected characteristics? If that of women—the majority of the population—can have been eroded in this way, what about all the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sexual orientation, of course? How will all those be safeguarded?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s final point, as I outlined at the beginning, protecting the most vulnerable people and protecting people on the basis of their protected characteristics remain an important element of the Equality Act and an important element of this Government’s programme and ambitions.

On how the clarity that this ruling brings will be communicated to and represented by providers, this is where the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission—in particular, the updated statutory code of practice—will be enormously important. It will spell out the practical implications to ensure that the meaning and clarity of this judgment are delivered in practice, particularly, as the noble Baroness outlined, in relation to single-sex spaces and their protection. This does provide more clarity now on the provision of those single-sex spaces.

Universities: Free Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the regulatory case report to which the noble Baroness referred underlines the importance of good governance and academic freedom in higher education. The Office for Students will shortly be writing to relevant providers on this important issue and offering support and advice. It will be publishing updated guidance for the higher education sector to support it to understand how to comply with its duties in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the robust backing that the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has given to the Office for Students’ insistence, via a hefty fine, on respect for free speech at Sussex University—including for academics such as Kathleen Stock, whose expression of a revolutionary belief about the reality of biological sex got them hounded and abused. I note, though, that Sussex University is indicating defiance of the OfS ruling. Will Education Ministers, not just the OfS, ensure that universities are persuaded not only of their intellectual duty to respect free debate but of their obligation not to waste taxpayers’ money, especially when they are complaining about a shortage of funds?

[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.