(5 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberI understand why the noble Baroness is asking that question, but it has been very important that we listen and respond. The EHRC has done the same. We now have the draft code, as the Written Ministerial Statement says. The Civil Service has been very clear—the noble Baroness knows this better than anyone—that there is a period of purdah, especially as the elections involve bodies directly involved in the application of this code. As soon as the elections are out of the way, we will bring forward the draft code under the Equality Act 2006. She does not have to wait—
Hang on, I am still standing. I had not quite finished, but I might as well give way to the noble Baroness.
I am privileged, and almost dumbstruck. I join others in paying tribute to the redoubtable team at the NGO For Women Scotland, who secured this Supreme Court judgment. A Government who proclaim their commitment to the rule of law ad nauseam have spent a year trying to evade it and now continue the gaslighting. The excuse of purdah is rather transparent. Why are the Government so contemptuous of voters, a majority of whom value single-sex facilities and services for women but are not permitted to see this code before 7 May?
I strongly dispute what the noble Baroness says—I do not suppose we will ever come to an agreement on it—but this is a very important issue. The Supreme Court judgment was absolutely clear; it brought clarity. If anyone is in any doubt about its implementation, they should seek legal advice. The impacts of the code of practice are very broad. I am not going to comment on the code. By the way, purdah is not something invented by the Government. Purdah is a well-established process, and we are not going to deviate from it. We are talking about elections that are only a matter of weeks away. This Parliament will have the opportunity, in accordance with the Equality Act, to review it properly.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI hear what my noble friend says. I understand his concerns; I do not think it is good practice to have legal challenges. They do not actually resolve anything. What will resolve things is to get the code accurately and robustly reviewed and properly published. The updated code is, as I have said, undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. This is a lengthy and legally complex document which will impact service providers up and down the country. Rightly, we are carefully considering it. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering it very carefully.
(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberI repeat that the cost has not been determined yet, because the scope and design of the scheme have not been agreed. That will be subject to consultation. Any cost in this spending review period will be met within existing settlements. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that all services that the Government provide in the United Kingdom are properly accessible in this new day and age. I do not think that is something we should leave to the private sector. We want to be leading it, so I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assertion.
My Lords, this saga, and particularly reading about the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, in the Times on Saturday, reminds me very much of 20 years ago, when Tony Blair and colleagues tried to introduce an ID card system. The way it was put by Mr Jones was that it is going to offer access to nearly all public services except, crucially, the NHS—that is a big exclusion, so it is not quite as convenient—and that it is a kind of magic bullet that will solve all your problems. It is very reminiscent of what happened 20 years ago. Have the Government learned lessons from that fiasco 20 years ago? Can the Minister assure us that there will not be a centralised database? Actually, he cannot, because there will be a centralised database of everyone’s IDs, which will be a honeypot for cyber criminals.
The world has moved on from 20 years ago. We are talking about recognising the opportunities that this new age presents for us—certainly in the provision of public services. Darren Jones was absolutely right to focus on that. We are not going to create a central database. There will not be that “honeypot” opportunity, as the noble Baroness put it. We are determined to ensure that those systems can talk and communicate more effectively with each other.
(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.
We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.
My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?
We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.