For Women Scotland Case

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not understand why I need to repeat myself so often. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. The Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. It is the law. Whether or not the Conservative Party needs to explain to the electorate, “We will comply with the law”, there is no doubt about it: we will ensure that the law is complied with. However, there are implications for policies that need to be properly examined, which is why we have the code and why it needs to be considered as a whole. It is disingenuous to constantly say, “Conservative councils will comply with the law” when every council has an obligation to comply with it.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, may I state the obvious? Trans people pose a threat to no one; lawbreakers pose the threat. Having said that, given that trans people represent approximately 0.55% of the population in England according to the 2021 census, can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse of adapting facilities across central government departments to comply with the judgment and whether that assessment has been shared with the Treasury?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. There has been constant reference to the Government’s position on the protection of women, and we are absolutely committed to ensure that we can absolutely say that violence against women and girls is a thing of the past. We are absolutely determined to end that. Violence against women and girls is not about toilets. But we have been very clear on single-sex spaces, and the Supreme Court judgment is clear. To answer the specific question from my noble friend, we have asked the EHRC to consider costs so that we can have a full consideration of the implications of those costs before a decision is made. However, I will not be tempted into commenting on the contents of the code because of the purdah arrangements that are in place.

Single-sex Spaces: Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Everybody should comply with the law; that is the Government’s position. Organisations that have any doubt about this should properly consult lawyers. We are absolutely consistent: the Supreme Court judgment is clear and should be applied. I am not deviating from that position.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking their time to get this right. I have to say, without any excuse, that they have not been helped by the mess they were given when the Equality and Human Rights Commission proceeded in haste following the Supreme Court judgment. There are obvious legal tensions, not least that which now exists between the judgment and the provisions of the Gender Recognition Act. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the Government will now move forward at pace and, in so doing, maintain their commitment to protect all the vulnerable affected by these issues following the judgment, particularly trans people, including trans women, who have been dehumanised, discriminated against and misrepresented throughout this entire procedure.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend will understand that I cannot comment on the contents of the draft code, particularly during this current election period, but I understand the sentiment behind the question. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government are absolutely committed to balancing all rights and ensuring provision for all. That is what this Government stand for and we will ensure that it happens.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question at all. We have a statutory duty, as does the EHRC. The EHRC is independent of the Government, but the Secretary of State has an obligation. As one noble Lord said, we will consider the code and either reject it or accept it. We are working with the EHRC to publish the code as speedily as possible. We want to avoid the very cases—whether it is the Good Law Project, Sex Matters or anybody else; there are lots of cases going on—as it is the people on the ground who suffer. We want to get it right and we will do so.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is nothing shabby about taking your time to get right a consultation that affects so many people who face difficulties and who are often treated as inhuman minorities in this country. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister, given that there are disputes across multiple settings, when will the Government consider it necessary to provide a clearer steer, working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, rather than allowing proportionality to be defined incrementally through the courts? I believe, in the end, that does not really help anyone.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I 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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gove (Con)]

I am grateful for those recent interventions. They certainly help me, and I am sure they assist the House. But it also assists the House to know that this House is more respected, not less, for giving extensive scrutiny to the Bill. This is the view of people, including those, such as Charlotte Ivers, who favour assisted dying. It would be a sad day if those of us who believe in exhaustive scrutiny and extensive debate were told that that was not in our best traditions.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to say, thinking particularly about those who are living, but specifically about those who are dying, let us pass this Motion tonight and get on with the work.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Gove, asks: how much extra time? The answer surely is that that depends on what progress we make tomorrow and next week. Can I simply say this? There are many difficult issues posed by this Bill, but this Motion is not difficult at all. We are simply being asked to vote that this House believes that extra time should be granted to the extent required to ensure that we can come to a conclusion, whether it is in favour of this Bill, whether it is against this Bill or whether it is that the Bill should be amended. Let us get on and approve this Motion.

Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Put simply, that is why we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and that is why it has a responsibility independent from government to do precisely that. That is why we will give full and proper consideration to the draft code. It is important that we maintain that balance and understand our respective roles and responsibilities under the Equality Act.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given the gross misrepresentation of trans people as a threat to others, I urge the Minister to encourage the Government to take all the time that is necessary to get the guidelines absolutely right, so that we can reverse the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court and the subsequent misrepresentation of that judgment. Furthermore, I urge the Government urgently to address the Equality Act to ensure that trans people maintain the protections that they have within the legislation.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, we recognise that the application of the Supreme Court ruling is, in some settings, complex, which is why it is important that this code is given full and proper consideration. That is why the independent EHRC code of practice is so important, and we will do that. I will allow the noble Baroness to intervene at this late stage.

Business of the House

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

It is a very strange phenomenon that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has not said anything. It suggests that perhaps he has been muzzled by his Front Bench who have leaned on him in such a way that he feels he cannot contribute, which is very unusual because we enjoy his contributions.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel I need to rise and speak to this. Sometimes our personal lives intervene in ways that we never imagined they would and this can affect our ways and means of communicating with others, even in your Lordships’ House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Am I to assume that the noble Baroness is pressing the amendment or seeking to withdraw?

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and I congratulate her on all the work she does for the people’s vote.

It is difficult to know where to begin, when an ending seems so close yet still out of sight. In the debate in this House after the referendum decision of June 2016, I expressed deep concerns about the divisions in our country, the growing intolerance of difference and different opinions, the depiction of migrants as a threat to our way of life and, in particular, the bloated promises made to the public by senior politicians, who have since, one by one, either left the ship in which they gnawed a hole, or remained in post and singularly failed to deliver the promises and cast-iron guarantees that they offered.

Politicians were not alone in constructing this narrative. Aided and abetted by over 40 years of drip-drip anti-EU propaganda from the majority of the printed media in this country, these newspapers—largely with offshore or foreign owners—swung into top gear and warned that unless we left the EU, our way of life would be under threat. Indeed, they told us that it was already under threat, and the cards of narrow nationalism and xenophobia were thrown onto the referendum gaming table, as legal migrants from the EU were paraded as a threat. Those migrants are people and our friends, who work alongside us in these buildings, who are our neighbours and who work in every part of the fabric of our daily lives. To our national shame, these good and decent people were paraded as a threat. These EU citizens have a right to be here, as we have a right to be in other EU countries. They abide by the rules, paying their dues and their taxes, and threatening no one.

As I said in our first debate, I woke up on 27 June feeling that I and my values of tolerance, acceptance and inclusion were no longer welcome in this country, and that a tainted discourse had been introduced to public debate. It got worse. Gina Miller, who had to take the Government to court to ensure parliamentary sovereignty over Article 50, was subsequently threatened and vilified in the media. Members of the judiciary were depicted as enemies of the people and their private lives laid bare on the front pages of our newspapers, and there were attacks on parliamentarians of both Houses who refused to be supine to the demands of the media.

This is the United Kingdom we have become, and I still feel the sense of alienation I felt as a Member of your Lordships’ House as I and others sought to defend the protection of fundamental rights and were met with, in some instances, laughter and then disdain. I listened as some blamed the EU for the rise of rampant nationalism in Hungary and Poland and, either through wilful misrepresentation or ignorance-driven prejudice, failed to recognise that it is precisely through the legislation of the EU that citizens and minorities are protected in these countries, and that any transgression is not from the European Union but from national Governments exercising their independence and sovereignty. Indeed, now provisions under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union are being considered against Hungary and Poland.

Need I remind anyone that the European Union has written the European Convention on Human Rights and other conventions into its legislative fabric, which every member state or accession state must ratify and abide by? But no—it is far easier to blame the institutions of the EU, which do not defend themselves, than to recognise the democratic nature of the European Union: a democratically elected European Parliament and the European Council, made of democratically elected Governments acting in concert. No legislation proposed by the European Commission can ever be adopted unless it is amended and agreed jointly, by the Council and the Parliament. If there is a democratic deficit, it is in the way that some member states failed to hold themselves accountable to their national parliaments for votes and agreements made in Council. I do not know about the time when the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, served in the European Parliament, but during my 15 years there I had to take part in trialogues, negotiating with the Commission, and there had to be agreement, otherwise the legislation fell. All this is relevant, because if we are to move on and heal the divisions, we must be honest about our role in the European Union and about what we achieve when we pool sovereignty, whether in the EU or, to take another example, NATO. We must be honest that every deal, trade deal or otherwise, entails a degree of loss of sovereignty, but it is about what we gain by so doing.

There is no strength in delusional isolation. The Empire has gone, and wishing it back will not bring it here. That is why the deal on offer is unacceptable, even if it is the best of the worst. It leaves us worse off and families abandoned and isolated, and, as the most reverend Primate reminded us, those least able to cope will be asked to carry the economic and social burdens. There will be cuts and more cuts, and be certain that the EU will be blamed, as will—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—foreigners.

Are families protected? Are our citizens living in the EU 27, and EU citizens who have made their homes here, protected? Will mutual recognition of judgment in custody cases, divorce proceedings and maintenance issues be protected? Will the benefits that we have accrued by working together be protected? No—but do not take my word for it. I refer your Lordships to paragraphs 95 to 97 of the European Union Committee report on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, the deep concerns expressed about repercussions for family law in paragraph 238, and the concerns regarding human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights expressed in paragraph 197.

In conclusion, we must be honest with the public: what they were sold is not deliverable unless they are willing to pay huge costs and inflict losses on future generations. There has indeed been a failure of political leadership. We have two options: we either suspend Article 50 and form a Government of national unity to sort out this utterly predictable mess, or we put the deal to the British people and ask them to accept the realities and responsibilities of the decision to leave the EU. If this is the best deal that the Government can achieve, give the British people the final say on whether it is acceptable.

Salisbury Update

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

If the information is available, I will certainly include it in the letter together with a breakdown of the funding. I have the overall figures, but I will add what information I can, if it is available, to the letter that I will place in the Library.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I would like to press the Leader of the House again on a point raised by my noble friend Lady Smith. On the European arrest warrant, have there been any assurances been given to the Government about it in that we may have left before it is implemented, and particularly given that one of the Government’s red lines is that the Court of Justice of the European Union will no longer have any jurisdiction and equally the Charter of Fundamental Rights will no longer apply in this country?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As the noble Lord will know, our future security relationship with the EU is something for the negotiations. That will continue. We have obviously been talking to our EU partners and allies about the new evidence we have found in the incident and they have shown great solidarity in supporting us with their actions. This will no doubt continue as this investigation continues. As the information we have today becomes clearer and can be shared, those discussions will no doubt inform the negotiations that are going on about our future relationship.

European Council

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As my noble friend will know, we have said that we need to ensure reciprocal rights.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, as I am from several emails, of families of joint EU nationals whose lives are being directly affected by this? We could move very swiftly to guarantee our citizens’ and EU citizens’ rights by remaining within the single market and reinforcing the conditionality of freedom of movement.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, we believe that this is a fair and serious offer. It is one that we want to implement because we want to provide as much certainty as we can to the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and to the 1 million UK nationals in the EU, and that is what we are working towards.

European Council

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, we are leaving the EU. That is the decision that has been made, and we will now work with our European partners to come to the best deal that we can between us. We will want excellent trade agreements with other countries. We continue to support the EU in ensuring that its economy as a whole improves, but want the best deals with our partners. We are absolutely committed to continuing to work with our European partners in the west Balkans. As the noble Lord said, it is extremely important to all our security.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to return to previous speeches but in the Statement the Prime Minister said with regard to the referendum that she would honour the will of the British people. As has been said, there is deep division and concern. What of the will of the 48% who voted differently? What will the noble Baroness say to them and how will she placate their fears?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Prime Minister has been very clear in saying that we need to move forward together as a country and that we want to heal the divisions caused by the referendum. The decision has now been made—we will be triggering Article 50—we need to come together, and Parliament will have a role in scrutiny and be involved in the discussions about what the future of Britain will look like. I think that it will be an optimistic and positive future, and that is something that we as leaders in the country need to get across to help give people the bright vision of Britain that I believe they will have.