Passports cannot be used to check biological sex says peer as Lords stands off with Government
The House of Lords continues to stand off with the Government in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman, with one peer arguing that passports can no longer be relied upon to verify someone's sex.
On Monday, peers voted on measures to demand public authorities record sex data based on biological sex. An amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill was backed by 200 to 183, majority 17, a Tory change which aims to ensure collection of relevant information is based on 'sex at birth', 'natal sex' or 'biological sex'.
The Labour defeat came after a similar amendment was rejected by MPs and means a continuation of the tussle at Westminster, known as parliamentary ping-pong, where legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.
Last month, top judges unanimously ruled the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
Speaking in Parliament, science minister Lord Vallance of Balham said: 'Let me be clear that this Government accept the recent Supreme Court judgment on the definition of sex for the purposes of equality legislation.
'We need to work through the effects of this ruling holistically and with care, sensitivity and – dare I say it – kindness. In line with the law, we need to take care not to inappropriately extend its reach.'
He pointed out the Supreme Court's ruling related specifically to the meaning of sex in equalities legislation.
Lord Vallance added: 'This Government are clear that data must be accurate for the purpose for which it is being used and must not be misleading.
'It should be clear to digital verification services what the information public authorities are sharing with them means.
'I will give an important example. If an organisation needs to know a person's biological sex, this Government are clear that a check cannot be made against passport data, as it does not capture biological sex.
'DVS could only verify biological sex using data that records that attribute specifically, not data that records sex or gender more widely.'
But his Conservative frontbench counterpart Viscount Camrose said: 'It is now very clear that we need accurate sex data recorded for a whole host of reasons, including for medical research and the protection of same-sex spaces.
'There is no reason why gender may not also be recorded in a separate field, and it is important that gender data is accurate too.'
Tory peer and former MP Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom also stressed the need for accurate data.
He said: '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.'
Retired top judge Baroness Butler-Sloss said: 'If we are to have data, the data must be accurate.'
Non-affiliated peer Baroness Fox of Buckley said: 'The minister called on us to have kindness. Of course, we should all have kindness all the time, in every instance. However, nobody here is trying to be unkind. The intent is to clarify.'
The Government went on to suffer a further setback as the Lords supported by 289 to 168 votes, majority 121, extra safeguards against people's data being harvested by AI companies without consent.
Independent crossbencher Viscount Colville of Culross said: 'This amendment is a push-back against the way the AI companies have been abusing the use of people's data in training their AI models.'
He argued the Bill as drafted gave 'a powerful exemption' which allowed AI companies to reuse data without consent if they could show their work aligned with the definition of 'scientific research' set out in the legislation.
Lord Colville added: 'I fear that this definition is so widely drawn that it will allow AI models to reuse data without consent, claiming that they are carrying out scientific research when in fact they are using it for product development and their own profit.'
But Lord Vallance earlier told peers: 'The Bill contains strong safeguards.
'Adding precise definitions in the Bill would not strengthen these protections but impose a significant, new legal obligation on our research community at a time when, in line with the good work of the previous government, we are trying to reduce bureaucracy for researchers, not increase it with new processes.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
3 minutes ago
- Leader Live
UK Government ‘betraying Wales' over rail funding, Plaid leader says
Rhun ap Iorwerth, leader of Plaid, criticised the UK Labour Government for reclassifying the £6.6 billion Oxford to Cambridge line to an England and Wales project. The designation means Wales will not receive the additional rail funding it would get if branded an England-only project. Mr ap Iorwerth called on Eluned Morgan, the Welsh Labour First Minister, to condemn the reclassification. Baroness Morgan agreed Wales was not getting its fair share but said she was expecting to see positive changes in the UK Government's spending review on Wednesday. Mr ap Iorwerth's comments come following reports that revealed the project had originally been listed as England-only from 2020 to 2024. The Treasury told the BBC the classification was a 'publishing error' and insisted it was always considered an England and Wales development. Speaking First Minister's Questions in the Senedd on Tuesday, Mr ap Iorwerth said: 'We were getting our share until Labour actively moved the goalposts. 'Labour went out of its way to make sure Wales wouldn't get the money when the big spending really began.' He added: 'She should be joining me in condemning the UK Labour Government for betraying Wales. Will she?' Mr ap Iorwerth argued the reclassification was a 'new HS2 scandal' – a rail project that has been controversial in Wales. Despite none of the track being laid in the country, it was also designated an England and Wales project by the last UK Conservative government. Plaid has said this designation cost Wales £3.9 billion in funding. Responding to Mr Iorwerth, Baroness Morgan said: 'I've learned to expect nothing but constant negativity from the Plaid Cymru leader. 'I've been clear and I've been consistent when it comes to rail funding that we have not been getting our fair share of funding, in a position that the Tories left us with for over a decade. 'The difference between the Tories and the UK Labour Government is that they've recognised that injustice. 'I don't know what's going to be in the spending review, but the one thing I do know is that if Labour gave Wales a total land of milk and honey, Plaid Cymru would still find fault.' Baroness Morgan added they were 'expecting something positive from the spending review', but the Welsh government would have to keep on making the case for a fair share of funding. In January, the UK government admitted Welsh railways had been underfunded, with spending at 'low levels' in recent years. However, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander did not announce any additional funding at the time.
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.
South Wales Argus
14 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
UK Government ‘betraying Wales' over rail funding, Plaid leader says
Rhun ap Iorwerth, leader of Plaid, criticised the UK Labour Government for reclassifying the £6.6 billion Oxford to Cambridge line to an England and Wales project. The designation means Wales will not receive the additional rail funding it would get if branded an England-only project. Mr ap Iorwerth called on Eluned Morgan, the Welsh Labour First Minister, to condemn the reclassification. Baroness Morgan agreed Wales was not getting its fair share but said she was expecting to see positive changes in the UK Government's spending review on Wednesday. Mr ap Iorwerth's comments come following reports that revealed the project had originally been listed as England-only from 2020 to 2024. The Treasury told the BBC the classification was a 'publishing error' and insisted it was always considered an England and Wales development. Speaking First Minister's Questions in the Senedd on Tuesday, Mr ap Iorwerth said: 'We were getting our share until Labour actively moved the goalposts. 'Labour went out of its way to make sure Wales wouldn't get the money when the big spending really began.' He added: 'She should be joining me in condemning the UK Labour Government for betraying Wales. Will she?' Mr ap Iorwerth argued the reclassification was a 'new HS2 scandal' – a rail project that has been controversial in Wales. Despite none of the track being laid in the country, it was also designated an England and Wales project by the last UK Conservative government. Plaid has said this designation cost Wales £3.9 billion in funding. Responding to Mr Iorwerth, Baroness Morgan said: 'I've learned to expect nothing but constant negativity from the Plaid Cymru leader. 'I've been clear and I've been consistent when it comes to rail funding that we have not been getting our fair share of funding, in a position that the Tories left us with for over a decade. 'The difference between the Tories and the UK Labour Government is that they've recognised that injustice. 'I don't know what's going to be in the spending review, but the one thing I do know is that if Labour gave Wales a total land of milk and honey, Plaid Cymru would still find fault.' Baroness Morgan added they were 'expecting something positive from the spending review', but the Welsh government would have to keep on making the case for a fair share of funding. In January, the UK government admitted Welsh railways had been underfunded, with spending at 'low levels' in recent years. However, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander did not announce any additional funding at the time.
