Cuba: Humanitarian Situation

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the original Question in the other place from Jeremy Corbyn MP was fundamentally misguided. The people of Cuba have long suffered from economic stagnation and political repression, and the Cuban state has a long history of abusing its own people’s political, civil and human rights. While the US sanctions have clearly had an effect, that context must not be forgotten when we are discussing the humanitarian situation in Cuba today. Can the Minister say what discussions the Government have had with US counterparts since the beginning of the embargo? What assessment has his department made of the news that a sanctioned Russian oil tanker arrived in Havana on 30 March this year? Can he confirm whether or not the Attorney-General has given advice to the Government on the legality of the US embargo?

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his series of questions but, as he is well aware, successive United Kingdom Governments have opposed the United States’ embargo on Cuba and have done so consistently over many occasions for almost 30 years, certainly at the United Nations. We will continue that. Our position has been very clear that engagement and involvement are a way that we can deliver very clear messages about human rights. We have strongly made those points to both Cuba and the United States and we work with allies to pursue that position. In relation to reports of third-country involvement in Russia’s illegal war, we will continue to take appropriate action, together with our international partners, to deter those responsible.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has said about the blockade:

“Such severe sanctions packages that target entire sectors of an economy and produce broad, indiscriminate, and harsh effects on populations are incompatible with basic principles of international human rights law”.


We all know that poverty and hardship have been embedded by political repression in Cuba, but aid is now being provided by Canada and Europe for a humanitarian crisis created mostly by the US. The current blockade is making a long-term difficult situation for the people of Cuba potentially disastrous. What are the UK Government doing to engage with the United States Government to find ways to liberalise Cuba, to the benefit of its people, and not just see it as a resource to be plundered by US corporates?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but what the United Kingdom Government have been doing is engaging with both the United States and Cuba. We welcome the dialogue taking place between those countries. Certainly, we are incredibly concerned about the current humanitarian situation. Our first concern is obviously also with United Kingdom citizens who may be involved, but our priority is to ensure, working through United Nations agencies, that humanitarian aid is delivered to the people of Cuba—who, as the noble Lord points out, have suffered tremendously, and that needs to be addressed.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in that one-party state which systematically suppresses dissent, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, which routinely uses sham trials and which imposes arbitrary detention in harsh prison conditions, targeting journalists, labour activists and pro-democracy activists, can the Minister explore ways in which we can provide practical support and encouragement to groups such as Cuba’s Ladies in White, composed of women relatives of political dissidents and recipient of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought? Can he also say when we last raised with the Cuban authorities the denial of access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to Cuba’s horrific prisons?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the latter point, my honourable friend the Minister in the other place, Chris Elmore, has been in touch with the Cuban authorities. He has also spoken to the Cuban ambassador about these issues. We have been clear in our long-standing bilateral relationship, which has provided the opportunity for frank and constructive dialogue and allows us to continuously raise these human rights issues. The noble Lord is absolutely right, but we continue to press for the release of political prisoners by directly engaging, as I say, with the ambassador. We welcome also the release last year of prisoners under a Vatican-mediated agreement, so we are absolutely clear that these things must be properly raised with the Cuban authorities.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that in 2023, the previous Government signed the PDCA, which was a political agreement that looked at humanitarian areas and covered human rights. What is the status of that agreement? My understanding is that it is yet to be ratified. In that light, are we also engaging with the direct discussions taking place between the US and leaders of the opposition within Cuba?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said in answer to previous questions, we are engaged with the United States and with Cuba. We are encouraging the dialogue taking place between the US and the Cuban Government. In relation to the PDCA, ratification of the agreement was delayed to give the Government an opportunity to consider the position, particularly in relation to the global situation that we find ourselves in. What we have considered is that now is not the right time to enter into a new agreement and undertake new areas of our work. I think our priority is to address the immediate concerns, particularly in relation to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised, but also the humanitarian situation to ensure that we can support those United Nations agencies that are getting aid in for the people who need it most.

[Lord Boyd of Duncansby (CB)]

My Lords, President Trump has on a number of occasions suggested or hinted at the use of military force in Cuba. The present Administration of the United States do not have a good record of compliance with international law. In their discussions with the United States Administration, will this Government make it absolutely clear that they expect the United States to abide by international law in all its dealings with Cuba?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I suspect that the noble and learned Lord knows the answer to that question. We are members of the United Nations Security Council. We are absolutely committed to international law and urge all members of the Security Council and the United Nations to follow suit.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, the United States has offered $100 million in aid to be administered by the Catholic Church, which the Cuban Government have not accepted, as they insist that all aid must go through their own institution. Given that the Cuban regime has provided support to the Russian war effort, what steps will this Government take to ensure that any aid we provide is not diverted to the Cuban authorities but goes directly to the Cuban people, who have, as we know, suffered economic hardship and denial of freedom under a one-party communist regime?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat what I have said before. We continue to provide support, primarily through the multilateral system, including organisations such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF. In addition, we are among the major contributors to the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund. That is what we have been doing. Bodies such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF have established systems for monitoring distribution and ensuring accountability, which reduces the risk of diversion.

Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for his continued work on human rights and civil liberties. He and I may not have always agreed on the means, but the one thing that we have been absolutely at one on is the ends: we want to see an end to this sort of behaviour. There will always be differences on the means. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has frequently said to me, his positions in government often changed when he moved into opposition. Sometimes that happens in reverse.

This has been an incredibly comprehensive debate, and it is going to be very difficult for me to cover every one of the issues that have been raised. I know that we will study Hansard carefully and, if I fail to address any particular point, we will write and put a letter in the Library.

How we use the full weight of policy to prevent the gravest crimes known to humanity is among the most serious responsibility of any Government. Across the world, we are witnessing a deeply troubling rise in conflict and instability. From Sudan to Ukraine and from Gaza to Myanmar, the human cost is devastating. In the face of such suffering, it is right that this House considers how government policy can respond more effectively both to prevent these crimes and to ensure accountability when they occur.

The UK Government’s approach rests on the clear principle that preventing and responding to atrocity crimes must be embedded across our foreign, development and security policy. This is not an isolated issue; it is integral to how we promote stability, uphold international law and protect human rights. Our policies are therefore designed to operate across three mutually reinforcing areas: preventing atrocity risks from emerging or escalating; responding decisively where crimes occur or are imminent; and strengthening accountability and justice mechanisms to deter future violations.

Before I address those three areas, I remind the House that on Human Rights Day 2024, the Government identified five key priorities that very much reflect how this debate has gone. The first priority was about defending civic space and fundamental freedoms. By the way—noble Lords have heard me say this—one of the most important ingredients of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society; it enables people to hold their Governments to account. This Government are committed to supporting civil society organisations.

The second priority—again, noble Lords have raised this issue—is the upholding of the rule of law. We are committed to the institutions that promote the international rule of law, including the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We need to build broad alliances and to listen to the views of others, even when we disagree. It matters that perpetrators of atrocities know that justice awaits them, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows. That is why we strongly support an effective and independent ICC.

The third priority is to champion equal rights for all. Stalling progress on the rights of women and girls, LGBT+ people and those belonging to other marginalised groups is troubling, and it is increasing. We must, more than ever, stand in solidarity with them, and we will advocate for the rights and freedoms of women and girls at every opportunity. This fundamentally includes sexual and reproductive health rights, which are very much under threat at this moment in time.

By championing the freedom of religion or belief for all, we are fighting back against the threats so many people face simply for what they do or do not believe in. The UK special envoy for VAWG, David Smith—my noble friend Lord Rook has mentioned him—launched his strategy last year and gave an excellent timetable for work, which focused on recommendation 7 of the Truro report. We are making progress; we will deliver on that. I am sure that David Smith will be the open to the suggestion of meeting with noble Lords, and I will certainly convey that idea to him.

The fifth and final priority is to respond to the global challenges by prioritising human rights and governance principles, working to end all forms of modern slavery and promoting business and human rights—these things go together and I have strongly argued for them. When I was Minister for Africa, in every African country I went to, I said that if their first priority is economic growth, how do they deliver it? They deliver it with an inclusive workforce that includes delivering on the rights of women. That is what we need to do.

I now turn to those three areas I mentioned, the first of which is prevention. Preventing these crimes depends on early, informed and co-ordinated action. Government policy prioritises building a deep understanding of risk. The UK undertakes rigorous cross-government analysis of conflict and instability, drawing on diplomatic reporting, expert insights and global data. This allows us to identify the drivers of violence, including political exclusion of specific groups of people, weak governance, identity-based tensions or a history of impunity. Our global network of diplomatic missions plays a vital role in this effort, and I have seen this across many continents. Colleagues on the ground, supported by specialist advisers and analysis, provide real-time insights into emerging risks and help to shape targeted responses. This ensures that our policy decisions are based on evidence and focused on where they can have the greatest impact to prevent atrocities.

To protect sensitive intelligence sources and prevent hostile actors from exploiting strategic vulnerabilities, many of our assessments, including the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy, must remain confidential. Last year, I invited both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend to talk about the review we were doing on the JACS process, which has been a very positive thing.

Prevention also means tackling the root causes of violence, with a focus on areas where analysis identifies those at greatest risk. For example, we support peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in fragile and conflict-affected regions, helping to address long-standing grievances. We invest in strengthening institutions, promoting the rule of law and countering disinformation and hate speech. We also work to advance gender equality and protect the rights of women and girls, recognising that gender-based violence is not just abhorrent in its own right but also a very big warning sign of broader risks of atrocities. Through our contributions on multilateral mechanisms, including UN peacebuilding efforts, we are building that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised PSVI and gender-based and sexual violence in conflict. I pay tribute to her for her excellent work. I have been absolutely committed to the PSVI work we have undertaken. We are making very good progress in terms of renewing our commitments beyond 2026, which we will do. The noble Baroness is right: we need a replacement for the excellent previous special representative on PSVI, and I very much hope that will be announced fairly shortly.

I was in Costa Rica for the inauguration of the new president there, where I met representatives of the UN agencies with whom we were giving financial support to the survivors of sexual violence in three countries in Latin America. I was really impressed with the impact of that. Of course, the key to that has been our absolute focus on a survivor-centred approach, listening to the people who are most affected, responding to them and building that programme.

In relation to Tigray, I had the opportunity to go there and meet the survivors of sexual violence, to understand what they wanted, not only in terms of ensuring accountability but also in how they can rebuild their lives and not suffer the associated stigma. That is why people use sexual violence in conflict—they know it has a stigmatising effect, and that is what we have to properly address.

The second area is how we respond, which is and must be decisive. Where risks escalate and atrocities occur, the Government act swiftly and in co-ordination with partners. The UK uses diplomatic channels to raise concerns directly with states and to press for de-escalation. We work through international institutions, including the UN, to raise the alarm, build consensus and co-ordinate action. Of course, this includes the Human Rights Council, where, for example, on 16 March our human rights ambassador raised the UK’s deep concern, which many noble Lords have raised, around the situation in Xinjiang. We have repeatedly used the Human Rights Council—because we can win votes there, by the way, beyond simply the Security Council; I accept what people are saying in relation to the situation in the Security Council.

Many noble Lords raised Sudan. The UK’s commitment to atrocity prevention in Sudan is unequivocal and long-standing, and we consistently monitor emerging risks, press the parties to the conflict for restraint and urge compliance with international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary has made it a priority. We must try to absolutely focus on this issue to ensure that it is not pushed down the global agenda, as we know it has been. The UK, as a leader of the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council, led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission mandate in October—the only UN mechanism investigating violations across Sudan.

This year, we supported the deployment of specialist sexual and gender-based violence investigators, to strengthen accountability specifically on conflict-related sexual violence so that we can hold the perpetrators to account. On 6 May, the atrocity prevention coalition issued a joint statement calling out the risk of escalation in and around Dilling in South Kordofan, pressing the warring parties to guarantee unimpeded access. I know these are words, and the situation in Sudan is dreadful, but we must make sure that it does not go down the global agenda.

On accountability, a central pillar of government policy is supporting international efforts to ensure that those responsible for atrocity crimes are held accountable. This is clear in Ukraine, where we have played a leading role in supporting the Ukraine Government to document crimes and pursue justice, including through co-operation with international partners and others. In Myanmar, the British embassy in Yangon is at the forefront of efforts to address the culture of impunity that is fuelling cycles of violence, as my noble friend Lady Nye mentioned.

Achieving justice can be challenging. Too often, the path is long and difficult—I know that that is the case in relation what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. I reassure him that it is not that we do not think there is accountability, but when crimes are committed, it is vital that we support the opportunity to gather evidence. You cannot pursue a trial without proper evidence, and that is a key element of our work. I am not dismissing in any way the nature of these crimes, but if we are to hold people accountable, that system is really important.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who asked about the case brought by the Gambia in relation to Myanmar. From what I understand, in March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by the Gambia for alleged breaches of the genocide convention. The UK’s intervention presented legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention. We have trusted that this will help the court when considering these provisions.

The Gambia v Myanmar proceedings have now moved beyond the oral hearings on the merits, which concluded in January of this year, and we are now into the court’s deliberative phase. It remains the United Kingdom’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by the competent court or tribunal, and we welcome the ICJ’s consideration of the issues in relation to Myanmar’s obligations under the convention. However, the status of the arrest warrant for Min Aung Hlaing is a matter for the court, which is independent, and we will not interfere with its processes.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, it is important to emphasise that no country can address these issues and these challenges alone; it is how we work with others that is vital. That is why our actions are grounded in multilateral co-operation. We work closely with partners and share information. Those returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by counterterrorism policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.

I am about to run out of time, but I want to address some fundamental issues. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about organ harvesting. These things are happening without public knowledge, and they are atrocities we need to address. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also raised UN processes, particularly on the UN vote veto. The UK Government were proud to co-sponsor the veto initiative that enables the UN General Assembly to scrutinise the use of the veto. We support the accountability, coherence and transparency code of conduct through which we have committed not to vote in the UN General Assembly against a credible draft resolution to prevent or end a mass atrocity.

I conclude by saying that the role of government policy in combating atrocity crimes is profound and far-reaching. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said about his genocide Bill, and he knows my response: we will not be supporting it. But we share the same ends. People need to be held accountable for atrocity crimes, and we need to ensure that we have the means to do that. I want to put the sort of effort that we have been doing successfully into supporting all those agencies which are gathering the necessary evidence, and where that evidence has been able to be presented to a competent court, we will do our utmost to support it. The Government are determined that we raise these issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for having this debate and for putting his Bill forward for consideration. I wanted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, but he has gone now; he has obviously escaped in time. Anyway, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It has been incredibly broad ranging, but very important for the future of mankind and womankind.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement on a profoundly important yet sensitive matter. When we debate the updated code of practice, we must remember that at the heart of this issue are fellow citizens. If we listen closely, we find that people affected by the code are driven by exactly the same fundamental human needs: respect, dignity and the desire to live with peace of mind. We hear the deeply held convictions of some women who look to single-sex spaces for privacy, companionship and dignity. For them, preserving the integrity of these spaces is not an abstract legal concept but a practical requirement for their dignity. We also hear the equally profound anxieties of some transgender individuals who fear that the new guidance will effectively lock them out of public life, strip away their dignity and subject them to humiliation or hostility when simply trying to access basic services. Both views are valid, and we must not ignore either.

As a House and as parliamentarians, our duty is to look objectively at the governance, economics and practical workability of this draft code in the light of the laws of the land. Following the laying of the draft code, the final stage impact assessment reveals a striking economic reality: the central estimated annualised costs sit at £81.7 million, with an overwhelming 82% of this financial burden falling squarely on the private sector. Further, 60% of the entire 10-year cost profile is front- loaded in the first 24 months.

Yet the assessment admits an extraordinary level of uncertainty and contains no independent verification from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Crucially, the document explicitly acknowledges that, due to severe data limitations, the Government have been entirely unable to assess the specific impact on small businesses and micro-businesses. The Government are, in effect, flying blind, passing a statutory framework that could heavily penalise local businesses without any hard evidence or baseline data on how smaller enterprises are supposed to absorb these costs. We must look also at how this code will work on a Wednesday afternoon for, say, a local charity or small independent business. Right now, it will create significant contradictions that would leave them exposed to litigation. To that end, I wish to press the Minister on four critical issues regarding implementation.

First, what practical or financial support will be provided to small businesses that simply lack the physical space or capital to build the self-contained gender-neutral facilities recommended in the impact assessment?

Secondly, what operational guidance do the Government intend to issue to public-facing service providers regarding the precise mechanism by which front-line staff can lawfully and proportionately verify an individual’s sex recorded at birth without breaching Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, GDPR rules on special category data or Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004?

Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the potential legal conflict for service providers between the provision in the draft code that a single- sex service will lose its statutory status if it includes an individual based on their gender reassignment characteristic and the ongoing statutory requirement under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate that the exclusion of that individual constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

Fourthly, the code will pass via the negative procedure unless Parliament acts within 40 days. Given the concerns about the uncertainty and costs it will create, will the Government consider supporting a Joint Committee of both Houses to give these questions raised by the ruling and subsequent code the parliamentary scrutiny they have not yet fully received?

If we want a society that is fair, we cannot pass down ambiguous guidance that forces business owners, charities and low-wage front-line staff to act as constitutional lawyers, risking complicated litigation. They need clarity and a code of practice that is operationally and economically viable. Above all, we need an approach that treats all individuals, and those trying to run services for them, with the certainty and dignity they deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and contributions.

I start by picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and addressing the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the general principle. We forget what the Supreme Court itself said in its judgment, which is, of course, repeated in the Statement. It is worth repeating. The court

“warned against reading this judgment ‘as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another’. That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football. The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision”.

That is where everybody in this House should be focused.

As the noble Baroness knows, having participated in a number of Oral Questions about the timing of the code, we have repeatedly said that it is important the code gets this right or it will lead to further legal challenges. I have seen the letter from the shadow Minister for Equalities on the issues of delay and changes. It is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to answer that specific set of questions. Our focus, as I have repeatedly said, has been to make sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that it is clear and practical. We have made sure of this by doing a thorough job of ensuring that the duty bearers have the guidance they needed to comply with the Equality Act. The EHRC has been clear that it made a decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation, responses and legal advice. That is where we are.

One of the key elements is to ensure proportionality, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has raised a valuable point, particularly about costs. The commission has been clear that service providers might comply with the law in different ways due to different factors, such as physical building constraints. There is no blanket requirement for a particular approach and duty bearers should take a proportionate approach. For example, a small café might have only one individual lockable toilet for all customers, and there are lots of examples like that.

The estimated costs that the EHRC has provided have been spread across different parts of the economy, not just one sector of business, over a 10-year period. Many of those costs will be one-off, rather than ongoing. This is about complying with the law and the draft code provides guidance to support organisations to do so.

On an issue that has been raised before, I have been clear, as has my noble friend Lady Smith, that the Supreme Court judgment was clear and must be complied with. All government departments must comply with it; we have been clear about that. The Cabinet Office has updated Civil Service model policy and departments will work to implement the policy changes as soon as possible. Compliance with the law is clear. We will continue to keep our guidance updated, to ensure that it takes account of the latest case law and any future updates by the EHRC to the code of practice on employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is right that there are other changes in the code that have brought it up to date, particularly around breastfeeding mothers and people with disabilities. We should see it in that context, and no doubt there will be periods when we need to do that.

The noble Baroness raised the issue of the NHS. The NHS is for everyone. The Secretary of State for Health is clear that NHS services should protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, while at the same time protecting the rights, dignity and safety of trans people. The Government have taken action by publishing the draft code, and NHS England will be publishing guidance to bring it into effect in due course.

I have said before that in the past, the debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic. I think that everyone in this House wants to ensure that we can move forward respectfully and compassionately and understand the needs of all our communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, knows that I have been part of a situation where a Government decided that a category of people in our community was not safe to work with children. That was Section 28. We should not forget that and the consequences of that. I am absolutely determined that we should protect everyone’s interests, including those of women, women’s safe spaces and, of course, single-sex spaces, as committed by the Supreme Court, but we must not forget that trans people deserve respect too, and that is what we will continue to do.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that we are now moving on to up to 20 minutes of questions—and I mean questions—from Back-Bench Members.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I very much welcome the last part of my noble friend’s answer. I would like clarification on two points, because the word “sensitivity” has been used, and indeed is used in the guidance. I would like my noble friend to confirm that it is discriminatory to involuntarily out a trans person; in other words, to reveal that they are trans without their consent.

My second question to my noble friend is: what would we say to a young person who has lived as their acquired gender throughout their adult life, completed the Gender Recognition Act’s demanding process and obtained legal recognition and is now told that their certificate confers no additional right to be treated as their acquired sex when accessing services? That is not about women-only services, which absolutely are protected. Does my noble friend think this is the outcome that Parliament intended?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. It has interpreted the Equality Act, and I know that my noble friend—and I think everyone on this side of the House—is proud of the Equality Act and what it has achieved. We are absolutely determined to ensure that the rights that are given in the Equality Act that apply to trans people are properly maintained. She is absolutely right on that. But it is important that we have—my noble friend Lady Smith said it on Monday—a tradition in our country to respect people. There is a British way of doing things. The idea that someone will be challenged simply because of the way they are dressed or the way they look is not acceptable. Most of my trans friends happen to be trans men. The idea that a trans man will be challenged for going into the women’s toilet is another issue. We should be promoting common sense, dignity and respect in relation to this decision.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

On the subject of proportionality so eloquently spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, does the Minister agree that there have been only four reports of alleged criminal behaviour by trans people in lavatories since 2022? Does he not think that the obsession with lavatories does us no credit whatever and that we should leave it to those who are the proprietors of lavatories to reach common-sense conclusions about their premises?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. What we do have is a decision of the Supreme Court and a decision of the independent Equality and Human Rights Commission about how that guidance should be complied with. I do not understand the fixation on toilets either. The point was raised about safety; we were talking about women’s refuges and the need for single-sex spaces. But when I am in Spain, no woman or man worries about where they go to the toilet—we use the same one on a regular basis.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, although I very much welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, there may be room for statutory exemption in respect of persons who have fully transitioned—that is to say, certificated and having gone through the gender-affirming surgery. There is a case for saying that they should be entitled to assert their acquired gender. I will cite just one case. I have a friend, a biological male, who was married as such and had children as such, and who has transitioned, is fully certificated and has gone through affirmative surgery. It is not reasonable to say that a person in that situation, albeit a biological male, should, if circumstances arise—in this case they would not—go to a male prison. That would be nonsense.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Viscount says. The Supreme Court judgment is clear about biological sex; we have to and we will ensure compliance. The independent Equality and Human Rights Commission has come up with guidance. That guidance has gone through a lot of process and consultation, and people have been listened to in respect of that. But we have to work our way through in a proportionate way. As I say, trans people are not just trans women but also trans men, and how we accommodate all these things is really important. We must respect their rights under the Equality Act but we must also fully comply with the Supreme Court judgment.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I went out with two female friends, one of whom was thrown out of a women’s toilet because she was wrongly identified as a man. As the guidance allows trans men to be excluded from single-sex spaces on the basis of appearance, how does the clear and practical guidance protect masculine-looking women from being excluded from women-only spaces?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I come back to my original response. The idea that somebody is making a judgment because of the way someone is dressed or looks is inappropriate. I think it is pretty obvious if a man goes into a women’s toilet by error or sometimes due to absolute need—which I have done, once, although I was told quite quickly, “This is not the place for you”. But common sense applies here. I have spent my life with the LGBT community and have spent my life visiting and participating in parties in clubs and bars where there is a whole range of people, whether feminine men or masculine women. We should not be making a judgment on that. It is British common sense which will apply in the application of this code. The idea that someone is told that they cannot use a toilet because they look a particular way is not very British.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the British way of doing things. Does he therefore agree that although various speculative issues have been raised around enforcement, in reality a combination of self-restraint, respect for the law and social discouragement from breaking it should eliminate most issues, particularly over time, rather like with the smoking ban? It is very rare to see anyone smoking where it is illegal to do so. There is no reason to think that the enforcement of this law and the Supreme Court judgment should be any different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not sure I fully understand. I hope the noble Baroness is agreeing with me that we will take a common-sense, British way. I have been in a theatre when there has been a very short intermission, the gents’ toilet is empty, I have encouraged women to use it and they have. That is a common-sense approach. When it comes to toilets, we know exactly how to behave.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his tone and approach—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

We have loads of time; it is all going to be okay.

I thank the Minister for his approach and response to these questions. It has been 12 months of trying to clarify the code and clarify the interpretation from the Supreme Court. I am seeing a significant degree of confusion about how the law will be implemented and how the code is to be interpreted. There is almost an accepted assumption that these things will be tested through litigation and case law. A number of small organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to, are worried about being litigated against, and trans people are worried about being shouted at. It is our job to create good law. Does the noble Lord think we are now in a position where we can say that we have created good law and can stand by it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness knows my position. As I said at the beginning, the Equality Act is good law. The Gender Recognition Act is good law. The Supreme Court has made an interpretation in respect of single-sex spaces, which we should comply with. The Supreme Court ruling explicitly stated that trans people remain fully protected by the Equality Act from discrimination and harassment. We are proud of the Equality Act and have no plans to change it. We have had this incredibly toxic debate for some time. Let us now settle it once and for all and get back to understanding the needs of individuals rather than using them as a political football.

[Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)]

My Lords, I have a very specific question. We are talking about not being able to challenge somebody who is a biological male. If there is a game of rugby, a women’s team turns up and they think there is a male on the other side, how on earth are they supposed to prevent themselves being in serious danger if they are not allowed to ask?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

You are not going to ask on the football pitch or the rugby pitch. In the code, there are respectful ways to ask certain questions. It is not done, as the noble Lord pointed out, by saying, “Well, you can’t go in that toilet”. Governing bodies have their rules and processes. The code is quite clear about how such things are done. I say to the noble Baroness: read the code and better understand its implications.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be finished in a moment. I too thank the Minister for the tone that he has struck today.

We are touching on an important issue. The code leaves us in a position where someone who has a gender recognition certificate has no additional protection under the Equality Act. The Gender Recognition Act was designed specifically to remedy trans people finding themselves in an intermediate legal zone. Given that, do the Government envisage that we may need to honour the commitment that Parliament made to trans people in 2004 when it passed the Gender Recognition Act?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says, but the ruling made clear that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. That has implications for gender recognition certificates, which no longer change one’s sex for the purposes of the Act. We will look at gender recognition reform, but we are clear that we will always support single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Everyone throughout society deserves dignity, respect and protection when using public services and healthcare. That will be our position. Our priority is that services ensure that they are complying with the law. This ruling has now provided clarity to service providers, and we also have the guidance.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under which this code was written. The Minister has referred several times to the fact that the Government interacted with the EHRC to take feedback, consultations and, as the Minister in the other place repeatedly mentioned, engagement. Given the meaning of Section 14(7) of the Act, which protects the EHRC’s independence, and given that the only role for the Government that it identifies is to write to the EHRC if they do not agree with it and to make that letter public, will he now agree to provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, asked, all the changes that they have made to that in violation of Section 14(7)? Or is he going to wait until there is another judicial review against the Government to get transparency on this matter? That is all we ask: transparency.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that the EHRC itself last month outlined that it had made a small number of changes based on feedback, consultation responses and further legal analysis on its part. We have been clear that organisations must follow the law. Our focus has always been on making sure that organisations have the guidance they need and that it is clear and practical. For example, one change made clear that associations can define their membership on the basis of more than one protected characteristic—for instance, a walking club for Muslim women or an LGBT+ support group—and continue to operate lawfully. We have not put pressure; the EHRC has explicitly said that the draft code was amended to make the law clearer for service providers and others. The EHRC has been clear that it made the decision to amend the draft code following feedback, consultation responses and legal advice. That is the position.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, despite the Minister telling me on two previous occasions that all government departments were already compliant with the law in the services they provide, he confirmed in a Written Answer to me that:

“Where necessary, government departments are carefully reviewing the ruling’s potential implications … to ensure that their policies and guidance are legally compliant”.


The Supreme Court ruling was last April, so departments have had over a year. Can he confirm—if not at the Dispatch Box, in writing—the results of those reviews for each government department, setting out which are now fully compliant with the law and which still have work to do?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Everyone must comply with the law. The Supreme Court decision is very clear, but it takes time to amend guidance and policies because, as I have said to the noble Lord before, they are not just about this single issue. Some policies particularly cover employment and, of course, the guidance now issued is about service providers. As I said in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Cabinet Office has updated Civil Service model policy and departments will work to implement the changes as soon as possible. The policy documents are being updated—that is a current situation —but compliance with the law is what they are required to do. If there is any doubt, they seek legal advice.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of law as it is, including where there are conflicting statutes. Everyone else must grapple with the consequences. The Government’s equality impact statement suggests that a consequence is that some trans people may be left with no adequate provision whatever. I know that there are young trans people in particular who, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester the other day, are feeling depressed to the point of being suicidal about this ongoing row. What will the Government do to ensure adequate provision as well as adequate respect, and what will Parliament do to decide what the law ought to be as opposed to what it currently may be?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend is saying, and I think she had a response from my noble friend Lady Smith, the Minister, on Monday about that. I repeat that I and the Government are proud of the Equality Act. We do not want to see it challenged. We will continue to take that position. I reassure my noble friend that, on a range of services for trans people, we are committed to ensure that they are improved and maintained. We have Michael Brady’s review on NHS services. It is important that we have gone from the period of the debate being toxic: that somehow trans people are a threat. We know why single-sex spaces are important, and that is the Supreme Court’s decision. We also know that the consequence of this toxic debate is to make trans people feel threatened. That is what we need to address as a society to ensure that they do not feel threatened and that they feel welcome.

For Women Scotland Case

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to implement the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments to ensure full compliance with the law.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary, and this includes government departments. Departments have been updating policies following the Supreme Court ruling. Internal Civil Service guidance is also currently under review. We will ensure that any guidance is consistent with the code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. A quarter of all women have experienced male violence at least once in their lives. That is one reason why biological males are excluded from women’s safe spaces—except, that is, in government. For more than a year, the Government have failed women by not restoring their single-sex spaces. The Empire State Building was built in a year and 45 days, but that does not seem to be enough time for the Government to sort out some toilets. Either the Government do not really care about the safety of women and girls or they are just incompetent. Which is it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have said before that this is a complex issue. It has also been a debate—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Can I just say this? It has been a debate that has been rather toxic. What we need is a bit of understanding and compassion. There has been no delay. We have been looking at this very carefully and we have been clear that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. There is no doubt about that. We have not been delaying anything. We have been clear from the beginning that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. If people have any doubt about it, they can seek legal advice. There are complex issues in relation to policies and procedures, not least that we have clear legal obligations to ensure that there is equality and fair treatment for all in every sector of our employment.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend will understand that I must declare an interest: I am on the programme board for R&R. The original legislation made it clear that accessibility and equality are key parts of the R&R programme. That is the most important thing. It is not simply about access to toilets; people cannot even get around this building, and that is an issue that we need to address. I am afraid I cannot be tempted to comment on the code. As my noble friend knows, that is now subject to purdah, but I can say that we have asked the EHRC to provide information on costs so that Ministers can make a fully informed decision. That is part of the process. We have asked the EHRC to provide a de minimis proportionate cost assessment so that Ministers can have sight of the cost implications that the guidance will incur when taking their decision.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, it is becoming a little repetitive for the House to hear for over a year that the Government must comply with the law of the land. We understand that the Minister’s role is to represent the Government, so I wonder why he cannot explain why he is not complying with the law. He has mentioned the pre-election sensitivity period now, which is the latest reason given by the Government for not laying the EHRC code of practice. I have looked it up and more than 60 statutory instruments have been laid during this period. That pre-election guidance, published by his Government on 2 March, applies only to primary legislation. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has consulted the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office and/or the legislative secretariat of the Cabinet Office to find out whether he can lay the code? If he has not done so, why not? Will he also lay that advice in the Library for all to see?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, but I do not accept for one moment that there has been a deliberate delay in implementing this code. I have been very clear. These are complex issues and they need proper consideration. The purdah arrangements are clear. We have received advice from the Cabinet Secretary. I have been very clear that we cannot comment on the code. The Government have made a commitment that the code will be laid as soon as possible after the election. That means in May—not in spring, not in six months, in May. We are being very clear. Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s chair to explain the background to the Minister’s Statement on 14 April. That letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. It clarifies restrictions during pre-election periods as set out in the guidance to civil servants. It is absolutely clear. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are following proper process in relation to this code.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, on 16 April, the one-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court judgment confirming that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, the Conservative Party announced that Conservative-run councils will publish clear, legally compliant policies on single-sex spaces and services. I also confirm that Conservative-run councils will publish their own single-sex policies and ensure that they are operational. Conservative-run councils will also act to ensure that funding and contracts will be withdrawn from third-party providers that do not comply with the law. Will the Government act now to ensure that Labour-run councils—indeed, all councils—understand that they must comply with the law?

[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 Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of implementing the proposed Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single sex spaces by means of primary legislation.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the Written Ministerial Statement issued today by the Minister for Women and Equalities. Under Sections 14(7) and 14(8) of the Equality Act 2006, if the draft code is approved by the Secretary of State, it is laid before Parliament. If neither House disapproves the draft within a 40-day period, the Secretary of State would then bring the code into force by a commencement order.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, at the third time of asking—I am grateful to my noble friend for his forbearance—I have just two brief questions. Why have Ministers never met any of the leaders of For Women Scotland, whose case ended up in the Supreme Court? One of those, Marion Calder, is sitting in the Gallery today waiting for an answer of substance, which clearly will not come following the Secretary of State’s Statement. That Statement clearly says that the commission’s advice was received by the Government on 13 April—yesterday. That must mean it was agreed forthwith. We have had all these months of delay and inquiry, but, quite clearly, we have now got to the election purdah. That is what it was all about—to delay the decision until after 7 May—was it not? It is an absolutely disgraceful way to operate.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I understand that the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, has responded positively to the request for a meeting, and I hope that will take place shortly. I have said repeatedly in this House—as a consequence of the repeated questions—that we must get this right. It is too important to not get right. The commission has worked very hard to ensure that all those considerations are taken into account. We now have received that revised code, and it will be placed before Parliament. As my noble friend quite rightly said, we are currently in a pre-election period. This means restrictions, and I am sorry; these restrictions are well established. Given the relevance of the code to the devolved Administrations, we are unable to make any announcements ahead of the elections. Those elections are only a matter of weeks away; as soon as they are out of the way, we will bring forward the code to Parliament.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, on 2 February and again on 26 February, the Minister was asked whether government departments are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling on sex. Given that the EHRC code does not cover employment and that the Supreme Court ruling will have existed for a year on Thursday, will the Government take another number of years to comply with the law, or will employees have to relitigate their rights all the way to the Supreme Court again, as the brave women in For Women Scotland did over six years? Will he commit to telling the House when the Government themselves will be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me repeat what I have said to the noble Baroness on numerous occasions. The Supreme Court decision is absolutely clear, and we will ensure full compliance with it, but that does not mean that existing policies and procedures in place can be simply wiped away. They cover a range of issues, particularly in employment, and it is important that the Civil Service properly reviews those policies. Let me reassure the noble Baroness—I have responded to Written Questions, and I have responded to her before—that we are fully insistent that everyone should comply with the law. That is, and will continue to be, the Government’s position.

[Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that it has been a year since the Supreme Court ruling. We have recently had the Olympics say that protecting the female category is based on science. Sport England’s own report said that we cannot have the inclusion of men and fairness in women’s sport. It is not okay to protect 1% and say that 99% of women and girls in this country are not worthy of fair sport. Will the Minister please tell me why Sport England is still giving money to sports that are breaking the law?

[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.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have rightly emphasised that protections for trans people remain in the Equality Act. Can the Minister expand on how the updated code will support service providers in balancing these protections alongside those relating to single-sex spaces?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to repeat the point I made: I cannot comment on the draft code during this period of purdah. I think everyone in this House knows the Government’s position. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the rights of everyone under the Equality Act are, and continue to be, protected. The Supreme Court judgment made that clear too; we should not forget that. We should absolutely remain considerate of the rights of trans people. I am afraid that this debate has been fairly toxic. We need to show a bit of compassion and understanding. I am confident that we can move forward once we have the code before Parliament.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, despite the love of the Civil Service words of “moving at pace”, many of us have had experience of government acting a little more slowly than we would like. To take a whole year to publish a code of practice is pushing that to the limit. Just because decisions are difficult, it does not mean they should not be taken. Ministers in both Houses have been dodging our questions for long enough. When—I am asking for a specific date, not another road down which to kick this can—will the Government actually publish the EHRC’s code of practice?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I 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—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Hang on, I am still standing. I had not quite finished, but I might as well give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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.

Middle East

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Earl in commending the commitment to our country of our service men and women. It is a deep regret that they are in a position where they are having to risk their lives on an unlawful and unwarranted conflict. On 2 March in this House, the Leader of the Opposition said that when President Trump called the UK should have answered and that the UK should have been fully involved in all the offensive actions in this unlawful conflict unleashed by President Trump with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Government. If we had heeded that, the UK would currently be bombing civilian areas in Tehran and targeting energy installations. Because of the impact on the Strait of Hormuz, we would be seeing the consequences for the UK as a result.

Seeking to tie us directly with President Trump’s decisions was a major strategic error on the part of the Conservative and Reform opposition, especially in the context that more than two weeks into this war we still do not know what the justification was and see no clarity on any endgame and a lack of strategy about what will be next. The Opposition asked us to be fully part of the measures for regime change two weeks ago. They are now silent on this issue. It is appropriate for them to state their position. However, this is the Government’s Statement, the Minister will answer for the Government and I will have a number of questions in a moment.

One of the consequences today is that we are seeing concerns about energy prices in the United Kingdom. This was a wholly predictable outcome. Earlier, we heard questions about seeking greater UK domestic production to try to mitigate this. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the global energy market works and how the United Kingdom is part of it. There is no direct correlation between greater North Sea production and greater domestic consumption. Even if there were, North Sea product is traded on the global market. Therefore, the impact on the global oil and gas market has a direct consequence on the United Kingdom. We export almost as much oil as we produce from the North Sea because of the complexities of the UK energy market.

Given all this, what action will the Government take to prevent some of the extremes if the trajectory of energy prices is up? What package of support can there be, particularly for the most vulnerable who need fuel and those living in rural areas? What is the latest with regard to our Government speaking with other like-minded countries that are seeking to mitigate what could potentially be even worse consequences? Can the Minister state whether any British Ministers have visited the region since the start of this conflict? If so, who have they met and what are our priorities for that diplomatic dialogue?

Turning to something of great concern in Lebanon, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, on behalf of the Government spoke very clearly this morning at the Dispatch Box. I agreed with everything he said with regard to the Government’s position on the concerns for Lebanon. It is extremely worrying to hear senior political figures within Israel talk about cleansing part of Lebanon and creating buffer areas. It is becoming apparent that the tactics that have been used in Gaza may well become the tactics used in Lebanon. The consequences of that, given the UK’s support for sovereign territorial integrity for Lebanon, should be significant.

What consequences would there be for the Netanyahu Administration if indeed there were territorial incursions into Lebanese territory? What are the UK Government doing to ensure that civilians are protected? This should not be discretionary in conflict. The protection of civilians is mandated under the United Nations in international humanitarian law. We are seeing far too many civilian areas targeted. What is now becoming apparent is the potential for collective punishment of certain parts of the Lebanese population, which we have seen elsewhere.

If I had asked the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, a question earlier, it might have been, just to follow through what he accurately said, on the fact that the UK has been a very major supporter through official development assistance for Lebanon over many years—£850 million, I recall him saying. The next sentence, however, is that our current level of capacity is an 88% cut in what the UK is providing to Lebanon for a humanitarian crisis, which is now almost on a par with what it was in 2014. The £30 million of humanitarian support, which has been uplifted with a further amount, is less than a quarter of what the UK provided in 2014. So, the UK is simply, in many respects, not at the table when it comes to humanitarian support.

There is also the very considerable concern that there is likely to be an ongoing cycle of violence and trauma of civilians. That includes the Israeli population, which is having to withstand unjustified attacks from Iran, but we are also seeing continuing violence within the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. What is the latest from the Minister with regards to our representations to the Netanyahu Administration on the West Bank? Have we warned them that there will be repercussions if attempts are made for full annexation? Former Prime Minister Olmert has warned of this, and we should equally be warning of the consequences of it.

Finally, the Minister will probably not be surprised to hear me make an appeal to the Government on the associated issue of Sudan. Much of what is happening in the Middle East and Iran has consequences for the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Sudan. What are the latest actions taken by the UK, as the penholder, to seek an end to that war and sustainable civilian government for the country?

Before I sit down, I want to close by saying that whatever our differences—and perhaps on this conflict, compared to previous ones, there are differences across this House—these Benches are resolute in believing that the Jewish population in this country should not be held to account for an external, foreign Government, and there should be no excuse for antisemitism on our streets in the United Kingdom. Some of the incidents that we have seen recently are deeply troubling. Likewise, the growth in Islamophobia, especially against young Muslim children in this country, is utterly unacceptable. I wonder whether the Minister would seek to convene cross-party talks, because even worse incidents are likely. We need to be united across this House to ensure that both those are considered to be completely unacceptable and are stopped.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions and contributions. I join both of them in acknowledging the service of our people in the region, covering a range of services. It is not just military people; the diplomatic and consular staff are doing an amazing job.

On the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on our community cohesion, we addressed that issue on Monday. It is important that we speak with one voice and say that the rise of antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable, and that also applies to Islamophobia. Sadly, we heard some comments from members of the Opposition recently about people praying in public, which were totally unacceptable. We need to come together to ensure community cohesion, because there is no way that anyone alone can be responsible for something such as what is going on at the moment.

The noble Earl mentioned the opinions on our response. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis: the Opposition, and certainly the leaders of Reform, have gone from saying very strongly that we must take action to them now reconsidering their position. The Prime Minister has been absolutely correct on this. As he said on 16 March, leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure. I believe that time will show that we have taken the right approach—on the economy, on the cost of living, on defence, on energy and on this war—in the best interests of the British people.

On the Strait of Hormuz, we continue to work closely with our allies on a range of options to support commercial shipping through the strait as the threat picture develops. As the Prime Minister said today, alongside partners, we are ready to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait. We know the impact that it is having on the global economy, the global energy markets and, more importantly, our communities here—people. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, what the Prime Minister announced yesterday: we are providing £53 million to support those households who are most exposed.

We are not just working with allies on the Strait of Hormuz. The Energy Secretary has spoken to BP, Shell and National Gas in the last few days. As noble Lords would expect, their primary concern is the safety of vessels passing through the strait and their duty of care to their employees in the face of ongoing threats from Iran. More broadly, the DfT constantly monitors UK shipping and, as I say, we are working closely with allies and providing advice and guidance where necessary.

As part of their work, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury have both spoken with Lloyd’s of London over the last week to ensure that appropriate insurance cover is available for operators in the light of the ongoing conflict, including policies to cover businesses for losses and disruption caused by the war, civil war and revolution.

I also stress that we are absolutely focused on our consular work. As the noble Earl said, over 101,000 British nationals have returned to the UK since the start of the conflict, including those who returned on the six UK Government charter flights from Muscat and Dubai. We will continue to work with airlines to increase commercial capacity and volume for British nationals. Commercial options have certainly increased. On Sunday, we saw 35 flights, carrying over 8,000 nationals, arrive back home. There is an estimate of a further 300,000 remaining in the region and, obviously, we will provide what consular support we can. I reassure noble Lords that we are making every effort to support the couple who have been arrested and detained. We are doing everything we can through our consular support.

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, related to that from the noble Earl. Obviously, our diplomatic relationships with Iran ensure that we can make those clear representations. I am aware that my honourable friend the Minister for MENA, Minister Falconer, has called in the ambassador here to make those representations strongly, as well as trying to provide consular support.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what ministerial engagement we have had. Minister Falconer has been constantly engaged with the commissioners and the embassy here, but also in many phone calls. The Foreign Secretary visited Saudi Arabia on 12 March to demonstrate our support for regional allies and particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council. We are with them absolutely. She saw the defensive support that the UK is providing in response to the immediate Iranian strikes, and discussed how the UK and Gulf states are working together to address threats to energy and civilian infrastructure. Our priority is to make sure that we keep the economy moving, because it helps us back at home. Our Saudi partners are certainly playing a critical role in protecting critical infrastructure and civilians, including the more than 25,000 British nationals who call Saudi Arabia home. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken with leaders across the wider region, including G7 partners, about that.

I turn to the humanitarian situation, particularly in Lebanon, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. As we discussed earlier with the Oral Question to which my noble friend Lord Lemos responded, it is a critical situation. We not only announced £5 million initially but have added another £10 million to make £15 million of humanitarian assistance to Lebanon and neighbouring areas. As we have heard, the situation is incredibly dire—the infrastructure and the bombing.

We have certainly made our position very clear: we have condemned the escalation and the Foreign Secretary has been very clear with all sides that further escalation of this conflict is in no one’s interest. Hezbollah must cease its attacks on Israel. We have also been clear with the Israelis that they must not expand this war further into Lebanon, but must do everything to protect civilians and comply with international humanitarian law.

I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioning Sudan. This conflict is taking our eyes away from the current situation there. We heard from President Zelensky, who was in Parliament this week, who made it absolutely clear that Putin must not benefit from this conflict. We have been very clear about that. We also must understand that many of the sides within Sudan’s conflict have had support from the players who are now involved in this conflict. We must ensure that we do not forget Sudan and that we keep it high up the agenda.

I do not doubt that we will cover more points, but I conclude that we are engaged in supporting our allies and determined to do what we can through defensive measures to protect our interests. We will continue—the Defence Secretary visited Cyprus earlier this week—to take all possible actions to do that.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the key justification of President Trump in launching this war of choice was that it was a pre-emptive action on his part because Iran was poised to produce nuclear weapons. Has not that claim been blown out of the water by the evidence just given to Congress by his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Iran had not sought to enrich uranium since the massive attacks last summer, and that therefore there was no justification for pre-emption, as suggested by the President? Does this not justify our Prime Minister in his cautious response to the US demand for assistance and his tilt towards closer co-operation with our European allies?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I said in my initial response, the Prime Minister has been absolutely correct in ensuring that we focus on international law and on our interests. We should not underestimate the threat of Iran—it is a serious threat to us. That is why the previous Government and this Government have put so much effort into ensuring that it does not get nuclear weapons. With our E3 partners, we have engaged in extensive negotiations in the lead-up to snapback, and Iran chose not to accept our demands; faced with Iran’s continuous nuclear escalation, we were compelled to trigger that snapback, and we ensured that we got decisive UN Security Council support for that. We are absolutely clear about the requirement to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons remains—it is a threat that is serious. We also need to understand its actions in the region, not only to do with its proxy facilities but even in what this terrible regime has been doing to its own population. We should be clear about the threat that Iran is to the whole of the world.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

Would the Minister accept that many of us applaud the caution of the Government in this situation? I was proud to visit, in a previous generation, the Armilla patrol, but the situation is entirely different from then. Forcing the Strait of Hormuz against organised opposition would be an extremely dangerous undertaking. If anybody wants to cast their minds back into history, they will see that we have a precedent for that from almost this month 110 years ago. Will the Minister accept that we should be very careful in engaging in military action to clear the Strait of Hormuz before there is an operative ceasefire of some kind?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been very clear that the most important outcome is a negotiated settlement and agreement to achieve the end of this war. The Strait of Hormuz presents us with a problem. We are in detailed negotiations with our allies because, as the noble Lord accepts, what we are facing now is very different from what we faced 10 or 20 years ago. Technology has changed. As the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, we have not just air drones but sea drones and other different things—it is not just about guns along the bank. It is important that we understand that. We are actively working with our allies to see how we can address this.

Either the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, or the noble Earl—by the way, I should have said happy birthday to him; dealing with this Statement at the end of the week is not a birthday occupation—referred to international law and the law of the sea. The law of navigation and trade is the number one priority for the UK and our ability to trade and be economically viable, so we are going to continue to work with our allies. The noble Lord is right that in the end we need a negotiated settlement.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I associate myself with the constructive and thoughtful way in which he has responded and with the comments made by other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because of the issues that he raised on Sudan.

Does the Minister accept that there is no hierarchy of wrongs, whether we are talking about the attack by the US and Israel in an unprovoked war on Iran and its population or about Iran itself conducting a blatant disregard of human concerns and pouring wars on its neighbours? I utterly condemn both those actions. Does the Minister accept that there was a peaceful solution in place, according to the Minister from Oman, and that it would have been possible if international laws had not been broken?

I have two questions. First, can the Minister assure this House that in our measured action—and I congratulate our Government on the way they have conducted themselves so far—no support is provided for killing innocent civilians in Iran? Secondly, the Minister will be aware that the al-Aqsa mosque has been closed to Palestinian Muslims for prayers at this auspicious time. Tomorrow is Eid. Has he had any opportunity to make representations to the Israeli Government to say that the mosque should be open?

Lastly, I wish Eid Mubarak to all those who are going to celebrate the end of the month of Ramadan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I certainly join the noble Baroness in her last comment in wishing everyone a successful conclusion to Ramadan.

It is not a question of simply saying, “That’s wrong and that’s wrong”. What we have faced in relation to Iran is a state that has committed crimes across the globe, even here in this country, and we need to be aware of that. We are facing a situation where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in Iran for standing up for their democratic rights.

The Prime Minister was clear why we made the determination in terms of our view of international law and not putting our forces in any doubt about their role. But once Iran started indiscriminately bombing and attacking its neighbours, which had not participated in the first attack, that was when we needed to ensure decisive defensive action, which we will continue to do. I come back to what I said to the noble Lord just now. At the end of the day, we want to see a negotiated settlement and something that is sustainable, but it cannot be on the basis that Iran can continue to develop nuclear weapons or to pose state threats.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too thank our Armed Forces and echo the greetings “Eid Mubarak” to all who are celebrating tomorrow, but I want to pick up on what the Minister has already said. The Iranian regime, through the IRGC, has cracked down violently on its own people, killing tens of thousands. Via its proxy, Hezbollah, it has attacked British interests at RAF Akrotiri. Can I ask about the threats of Iranian-linked activity on British soil? Twenty IRGC-linked plots are being monitored and four recent arrests of people conducting surveillance on Jewish sites have been made. The pro-Iran regime vigils and demonstrations have added to the sense of threat felt by the Jewish communities in this country—and I declare my interest as a proud British Jew. When will the Government proscribe the IRGC?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I have indicated the nature of the regime in Iran and the way that it has undermined and attacked people not only within its own country but across the globe. That is why the UK now has over 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including, let us not forget, the IRGC, which has been sanctioned in its entirety. Over 220 designations have been imposed since this Government came into office. It is a long-standing position under successive Administrations, as the noble Baroness knows, not to comment on the detail of security and intelligence matters, including whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription. But we recognise, as she rightly pointed out, the threat posed by the IRGC and will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the Iranian regime. A separate list of proscribed terrorist organisations is kept under review, and the threats to the UK are kept under review. I remind the noble Baroness that we have made a commitment: Jonathan Hall KC, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has examined how the UK’s legal framework should address hostile activity by state actors and entities, and we are committed to taking his recommendations forward.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement and applaud the Prime Minister and the Government for the way that they have responded to the crisis in the Middle East all the way through, both in relation to British people abroad and the entire international situation. I speak as the FCDO envoy on Palestinian governance; I have been there regularly over the last couple of years. I am trying, in a small way, to assist the Palestinian Authority to build an effective Palestinian state, with the rule of law, for the future. This is fundamental work if we want a two-state solution in the future.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for raising the issue of the West Bank in his remarks. The West Bank is suffering quite significantly from a tightening economic stranglehold, where the tax revenues are collected by the current Israeli Government and not transferred regularly to the Palestinian Authority, so most public sector workers are on a small proportion—25% or 30%—of their salary. In addition, there are a thousand checkpoints across the West Bank and, in some cases, there is aggressive settler violence. That is making the growth of the economy, never mind the governance of the West Bank, ever more difficult. But there are some very powerful, effective, thoughtful and constructive Ministers in the Palestinian Authority, and I am delighted that the British Government are doing their best to help them. Does the Minister agree that this is a time, with all the other distractions in the Middle East, to continue that work to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and, if possible, to make its work even stronger and more effective?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments and agree completely with him. When the Foreign Secretary presented her Statement in the other place, I think she said that we must redouble our efforts in focusing on and supporting a two-state solution. I acknowledge the work that my noble friend undertakes to support the Palestinian Authority. We made that support clear, which is why we took the decision to recognise Palestine, because we need to ensure that that is the focus.

The Foreign Secretary responded to a number of things. When I last visited the West Bank, I saw the groups of thugs—I do not call them settlers—who sit on top of the hills above Palestinian villages. They do not just harass people: the most horrendous case that we saw this week was a family returning from the shops, and young children being shot. We have made representations and are asking for clear investigations into this. The rule of law applies to Palestinian people too. They deserve the opportunity to be able to live and work in peace.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, particularly around how conflicts abroad should not result in hate on our streets. I fully back his call for a cross-party meeting of senior Members of your Lordships’ House to look at how we can work together to ensure that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not allowed to spread, given what is happening in the Middle East.

I also wholeheartedly back the Minister’s comments about what is happening in the West Bank. Those incidents, such as individuals being attacked, are heartbreaking. Often it is not just the young but the elderly who are brutalised and beaten up for no reason other than the fact that they live there. Your Lordships’ House should be very clear that the Government of the United Kingdom will take strong action against anyone who is involved in that, including sanctioning further individuals.

One point that has not been mentioned so far is the Houthis in Yemen. At the moment they have stayed out of this conflict, but what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about the impact, particularly on trade, if the Houthis were to enter this conflict? There is huge attention on fuel at the moment, and the fact that energy prices are both affecting us domestically and, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, affecting energy-intensive industries such as steel, in places such as south Wales, south Yorkshire and Scunthorpe.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the comments about the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia, we all have a duty, across political parties, to ensure that we focus on greater community cohesion. That is fundamental, because there is no doubt that there has been an increase in both Islamophobia and antisemitism, and we need to address that. My noble friends across Whitehall have been working on how we can work across government to deal with that issue. The idea of discussions is something that the usual channels could look at; it is certainly worthy of consideration.

The noble Lord discussed Yemen. We have seen a huge humanitarian crisis there as a consequence of the actions of the parties, particularly the Houthis. We constantly review the situation and work with our allies: we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia in particular, but our focus at the moment is on the whole region. This conflict is destabilising the whole region; we need to ensure that we give support to our allies so that they can defend their position.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on avoiding the pull towards an illegal and pointless conflict in the Middle East, despite the pressure brought to bear from some national and international corners. We have heard much about the impact of the conflict on oil and gas supplies. What we have not talked about quite so much has been the impact on our diplomatic efforts in the region, and no doubt there will have been a large impact and much disruption to those diplomatic matters. Your Lordships’ House has heard and asked questions in previous weeks about the conditions for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, the two Brits jailed in Tehran a few weeks ago, just before the conflict began. Can my noble friend the Minister update us on the diplomatic efforts that are continuing to be made to secure their safety, security, health and ultimate release, despite the devastating impact of the conflict on the usual diplomatic channels?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The noble Earl raised the Foremans in his contribution and I responded by saying that we are making every effort through our consular services and maintaining that diplomatic link. My noble friend is right to focus on the importance of diplomacy. We talk about the need for defence and for ensuring that our allies have the appropriate support, but the sort of dialogue that we have been engaged in is vital, and we will continue to do that. Our thoughts are very much with the Foremans and with their family. It must be incredibly concerning to be in this situation, and we are making all efforts to provide consular support and make representations to ensure their release.

House adjourned at 3.50 pm.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week’s Statement and, indeed, for his personal engagement with us at that time.

The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.

The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?

Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches. The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only: to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image becoming part of what Liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database for police access ever created in the United Kingdom. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of Clause 138 of the Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA records. So, within a single parliamentary week, we have a Government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statute the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. The question is not whether the Government intend that digital ID will become an instrument of surveillance, but whether a future Government could.

The Chief Secretary said that he wants security at least as strong as online banking. That is the right aspiration, but, as mentioned by the noble Earl, GOV.UK One Login, the umbrella infrastructure for this system, reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities that allow unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. How can the Government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half the NCSC’s mandatory security outcomes?

In part two of the Fisher review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI-driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age and that we must implement upstream measures—stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen. If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr Fisher demands?

Will the Government commission and publish a full NCSC security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offence of digital identity theft that they, along with the previous Conservative Government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo. Without strict legal guardrails, that identifier is the functional infrastructure of the national identity register that Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and it is precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise. We need not mere parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments.

In summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation, with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? In that context, and as the noble Earl has mentioned, how mindful are the Government of the possible consequences for digital inclusion? Secondly, the Home Office’s assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word those given by the previous Government. Before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the Government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? Finally, will the Government publish an independently verified cost-benefit analysis before the Bill is introduced, and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit directed to the NHS and front-line policing, for instance?

The Chief Secretary asked what it is that critics fear from a public consultation. We do not fear the consultation; what we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure, grand ambitions and insecure foundations—a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. But what we fear above all is a system whose data acquires uses never publicly intended by its creators. We have just watched that happen in this very Chamber with the DVLA database of images. We on these Benches will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services, but we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this and last week’s proceedings, we are very far from that guarantee.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is asking me questions to which, as he very well knows, I am not going to give the answer. That is the whole point of the consultation, and across the Chamber, everyone knows this in reality. We want to ensure that the public can access public services in the same secure way as they access many things in today’s society, including banking. Most members of the public assume that there is this great big database; they assume that their data is being used. The reality is that there are these silos. This consultation is not proposing what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl were suggesting. It is not saying, “Let’s create this huge database, which could be vulnerable”. Instead, let us make it easier for the public to access the services that they need.

On the questions about inclusion and accessibility, I met with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his group, and I said that what we want to ensure through this consultation and digital ID system is a much more accessible system. We want a system that is more open to people who have been excluded because they have to produce or send a certain form, ring a certain number, or go through a certain call centre. What we are trying to achieve is greater accessibility.

The question of inclusion also relates to people’s access to the internet. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is not here, because I also had a meeting with him. There are strong, legitimate concerns, which is why we are conducting this consultation and why we want everyone in this House to participate in and make a contribution to it. The noble Lord made the same point: where there is exclusion, we can use community-based organisations—including post offices and sub-post offices—in a way that will ensure that people can maximise their opportunities to access public services.

The noble Earl asked me about cost, but there is no cost associated with this yet, because the system has not been designed. The system will be designed following the results of the consultation.

The consultation will not be limited to a certain number; it will be open across the board. We also want to establish a panel. Carnegie UK pointed out, in a letter to the Guardian, that a deliberative exercise in democracy—namely, selecting people randomly through postcodes—can produce a much more effective consultation. However, both approaches will be in what we end up designing.

I come back to this fundamental point. This is not only about how people access public services but about how they can determine the use of their data, so that they can set out when they want their data to be used for a particular purpose. For example, there are times when I might need to establish my ID. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, I occasionally go to a club—a dance club, by the way. If I am asked to produce an ID, I do not want to produce my driving licence because it has my name and address as well as my age—believe it or not, they sometimes do ask me my age. If they want to know my age, I am happy to release that data—but not my address or other things. So this is about how we establish that sort of process and about accessing public services.

In this day and age, for every private sector service we use, we expect to be able to access things. Tesco has more data on me than most government departments do, because it knows what time I go shopping, what I buy and what I favour, and it then sends me emails and messages about that. We have to try to turn away from the view that this is a rigid identity card system that will be on a national database. This is about public services, how people access and use them, and how they can control their data more effectively. I reassure the noble Lord on that.

There will be an initial consultation of 12 weeks, but that could be extended with the deliberative process. At the end of that, we will look at the results, and Parliament will be heavily engaged in that. No legislation has been drafted yet, because we want to see the results of the consultation and the scale of the project. I understand everyone’s concerns about cost, as well as some of the problems we have had in the past, but this is an opportunity to respond to people’s needs and to create more effective public services. Most people expect that from the private sector and we should expect it from the public sector too.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, first, I take it from what the Minister has just said about costs that no sum has been earmarked in the current three-year expenditure review for the development of the scheme—can he confirm that? Secondly, will people in Scotland have to access the Government’s proposed ID scheme for those services that have been retained, and a separate ID scheme—namely, the Scotcard—for those services that have been devolved?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We will consult the devolved authorities on this; they will be a major part of the consultation. There is no definite cost for the programme because the design of what we are building has not been decided yet. Noble Lords should not just look at one line item on the shopping bill but rather the whole thing. The issue is that the status quo has costs. I know we often say this, but if we can develop a more efficient digital portal for people to use, it could potentially reduce costs and save the public and the Government money. That has to be a good thing.

If you look at all the private sector services we use that currently have this sort of thing, they are doing it to reduce costs—although they often dress it up as “improving services”. Let us take banking: my accessibility to banking services has improved hugely over the years. I can do many more things online and through apps than I could ever have done before by visiting a local bank. I reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this will not be a mandatory system. When we are able to launch it, I suspect that it will be something that people want to use, because it will make their lives easier. That is what we should be doing.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Identity. The Minister said that he will consult widely on this and on what support there might be for it. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition. If they have not already convinced the Government that they are opposed to it, how will the Government ensure that many of them will have the opportunity to feed the Government their opinion?

This morning, I tried to log in to GOV.UK on a personal matter but was kicked out eight times. My digital understanding is pretty good, so that worried me greatly. I knew that this was coming up, so I wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to this issue. We have been talking about sovereignty and keeping all our information in one place. So far, the experience of GP services has been that we do not have exclusive access to our data because it is farmed out somewhere else. Has that been considered? How will we ensure, eventually, that any ID information is sovereign and held in this country under our Government or whatever system we set up?

Finally, there has been lots of evidence of discrimination, particularly against Black and Asian men and Muslim women. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that aspect as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s last point, how we look at inclusion and accessibility is really important in tackling those issues of discrimination. It is very important that the consultation looks at that. The noble Earl also raised a question about the NHS app which I did not explicitly address. That has developed very strongly, and it is very clear that that will continue. This will not be part of the NHS; it has never been planned that way. It is also about people having confidence that their medical records are kept absolutely secure, which is fundamental.

This is about a tool to access a range of services. I hear the noble Baroness. The noble Earl raised OneLogin. There are issues about that. There are different forms of identifiers. Digital ID could provide a consistent identifier that could be used across all Governments, so instead of having to produce hard copies and photocopies, we just have that one ID on an app. We are using it in the private sector, in banking in particular but in other services too. I think the consultation will produce a clear idea of what people’s needs are and how the Government should respond. My right honourable friend Darren Jones is absolutely right; this is about putting our public services on a 21st-century footing.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I very much welcome the deliberative aspect of this consultation. It is good to see the Government doing that, and I hope it goes into other areas. I want to associate myself with many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. Hopefully over this consultation period they will all be answered. I have two concerns. First, who is going to build this? Who is going to have access? Is this another gig for Palantir? That is my real question. Secondly, we have so many very good ID firms in the private sector here in the UK—it is something we excel at—but can the noble Lord say a little more about what they are going to do behind the ID? It seems to be all about the ID, but it is what happens at the other end that is the exciting bit, were he able to describe it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot be too prescriptive, but I can reassure the noble Baroness on her first point; a number of noble Lords have raised this issue. This will be a sovereign-based scheme. We will develop it in-house through government services. It will not be contracted out. On her other point on how this will develop, I think it will be led by people, not the Government. People will be demanding these things. No one has asked this specific question, but many parents want their children to have age identification. The noble Baroness has raised questions in other debates about how children are accessing things now. If they were required to have this, it may be a solution. I am not saying it is, but it is something that we would want to see as part of the consultation. The deliberative process, which is part of the consultation, will be a random selection of people, but it will be a much more intense consultation with those people, better identifying what their needs are.

I cannot answer many of the questions that noble Lords have because we want to see what the consultation comes up with, but we know what people are generally seeking here. If legislation is required, we will debate what should be in a Bill and so on, but I am confident that the consultation will result in the better policy outcome that we all desire.

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his update. First, can I take him back to a slightly more fundamental question that we are yet to address in this exchange? Why do the Government feel it is necessary at all to have a consultation, given the visceral public reaction to the proposal to introduce digital ID in the first place? That in itself seems like a pretty convincing consultation. We all know that the Government have stepped back politically from their original plan on digital ID and wound back to this position because of that reaction. Secondly, on the form of the consultation, the 100-person panel sounds very novel. Can the Minister give any assurances on the control over spending in that process and whether it will be value for money compared with other forms of consultation? Lastly, digital ID is one of a large number of policies that the Government seem determined to introduce despite the fact that it was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election. Can he account for that fact and explain why the Government are determined to bring it forward when there is no mandate for them to do so?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I keep coming back to the point that when we are looking at public services and people’s access to them, there is a solution here that most people would be very happy about—but we will not determine that unless we have a fuller consultation.

On the value-for-money element, the deliberative process will be through a process called sortation and a random postcode lottery. That is a way of selecting individuals in which everyone is given an equal chance to be invited and no individual can buy their way in or simply turn up to an event. But that does not stop everyone else participating in the wider consultation, so I think we have the best of all worlds. It will result in more effective consultation but also more cost-effective consultation.

I come back to the point that this Government are determined to listen and better understand the needs of the public in relation to the services they provide. I think that is across all parties. No Government want to end up with the situation the noble Baroness described where you spend hours trying to get on to a public service and are constantly kicked out or rejected. This is about making the process easier. No matter what other people say this is about, I assure the noble Lord that it is about that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said; I hope we all give this a great deal of support. Does he agree with me that it is a great pity that the pilot scheme abolished by the coalition Government in 2010 was not allowed to run? All the indications are that it was very popular with those who used it.

On the point about the driving licence, as a non-driver and non-car owner, I resent the fact that I have to use a driving licence as a form of ID because it is the only ID that is practically acceptable. There is a government consultation at the moment about mandatory eye tests, which presumably I shall have to go through in order to get a driving licence—which I will never use—because it is the only acceptable ID. This will surely be very popular with many people. We cannot allow the nay-sayers or pressure groups to get in the way of making progress.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. When we all sit down and have a sensible discussion about this and try to take the partisan politics away, we will reach a much better consensus. This consultation enables us to do that.

At the outset, we have to put at the forefront of our thoughts the needs of the public in how they access services. My noble friend is right—driving licences have become the de facto ID. The fact is that the driving licence, as I said in my opening remarks, has data that I do not want handed out easily. That is why I think this solution will benefit the public and get cross-party support.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in applauding the Government’s commitment in this Statement to deliberative democracy. That is an innovative step forward, but I am sure the Minister will want this Statement to be accurate, so I point out that it says:

“This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping”.


More than 15% of Britons do not do online shopping and more than 12% do not do online banking, despite the fact that banks have been closing branches wholesale and trying very hard to force people online, whether they like it or not. Does the Minister agree that the way this Statement is phrased is really over-egging the pudding?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not agree at all. I think that 14% of people do not have some of the things that the noble Baroness referred to, but the world is changing very fast and if we are to address financial exclusion, inclusion and accessibility, this process can address many of those concerns. As I said, there are community organisations and community services. For example, many people use their post office, and we want to ensure they have that choice. We are moving into a world, as she rightly said, where banks are determining how they will provide services and Tesco is determining what I can buy or what I should buy using data supplied to it. The world is changing and it is about time that, first, the state caught up in provision of public services and, secondly, the public can determine what data is used for what purpose. That is why this is a good idea.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s points about the consultation process; there is a great deal to consult about. As one Tesco consumer to another, can my noble friend confirm that, almost irrespective of the consultation, the Government are determined to allow an individual, if they wish, to delete their digital ID? If there is any more that the Minister can say about the circumstances in which a digital ID might be withdrawn from an individual by the state, I would be grateful to hear his thoughts.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me address the first question. This is not a mandatory scheme and, certainly, if people have a digital ID, they can say they do not want it. I do not anticipate any circumstances where a Government would want to take away something that lets people access public services, but I hope the consultation will result in a much more open and transparent debate so that we focus much more on the needs of the public rather than what we think a Government might do.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, as ever with many big government ideas, there is a solution that is yet to find a problem.

I am yet to hear a ministerial Statement on the very serious data events that happened at Companies House over the last week. I have not heard a Statement from Ministers at the other end, and I do not believe I have heard one in this House.

What happened last week was probably the most serious data breach to hit Companies House in a generation. I am in practice as a chartered accountant, and let me advise the House and the Minister on what happened. If one were logged in to Companies House with one’s personal online registration, one could then find a backdoor route very simply to access any company record in the UK, change directors’ details, find their personal address, file company accounts and file new confirmation statements. This is serious stuff and it is why, me included, we have serious concerns about big government attempts at managing data, because it generally goes wrong. Where a poste restante email address is used, which is very commonplace within practices, those practices are going to have to trawl through all the companies registered with them. Many in the profession are asking: will the Government reimburse the practices which will have to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of hours making sure that the Companies House foul-up has not affected their clients?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly answer on his latter point, but I certainly will ensure that he gets a response about it. It is interesting that he was, I think, making the case for what we are proposing. The problem is that different government departments have different portals, different IDs, different ways of getting in and different ways of controlling the data. We want a much more secure digital ID that people will have confidence in. This is not about collecting new data, and it is not a big idea that we will have this central database of everything; this is about how people access public services. At the moment, if you want to get in through Companies House, the noble Lord described something that digital ID may resolve. But other departments have different schemes. Everyone has a story about being locked out of these services because they do not have the right identification or ID, and this is a solution that will help the public. That is what we should be talking about, rather than seeing this as being about big government. It is about delivering public services and not about big government.

Antisemitism on University Campuses

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of anti-Semitism on university campuses.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no place for antisemitism on university campuses, and it is essential that Jewish students feel safe along with everyone else, regardless of race or religion. That is why we have strengthened the Office for Students’ monitoring and universities’ Prevent duties, and updated guidance on managing external speakers and events. We are working with students to codesign a campus cohesion charter setting clearer expectations around conduct and shared values.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the Answer, but this PNQ arises from Time for Change, a report produced by the Union of Jewish Students. It is crammed with disturbing figures, including the fact that one in four students has witnessed antisemitic behaviour. However, the report’s central finding is that antisemitism is being normalised on campus after campus, very often at the behest of wayward academics. Can my noble friend say what further action the Government will take to ensure that universities confront the normalisation of antisemitism and protect Jewish students?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. If anyone was listening to the “Today” programme, they would have heard first-hand the experience of many Jewish students. It was pretty outrageous. It is not only about verbal abuse; there are stories of people being kicked out of their accommodation, and so on and so forth. I reassure my noble friend the Government are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in education programmes, train university staff and support Jewish students. Last week, we announced plans to simplify the higher education complaint system, strengthen whistleblowing routes and increase oversight of Prevent compliance with the new OfS guidance from 2027. Additional non-statutory guidance on external speakers will be issued in the spring and the department is working with the Union of Jewish Students on new good practice training for universities. My noble friend Lady Smith will host a round table on 24 March to address these issues.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, many noble Lords had the opportunity in the last few weeks to hear directly from students. This report confirms all the things that they said. Does the Minister regard it as significant that the report found that both the college authorities and the police were slow and reluctant to take this on? What concrete action will the Government take to remind authorities and the police that it is their job and duty to make Jewish students feel safe?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I made that clear in my initial response. There is absolutely no place for antisemitic abuse or incitement to violence. I heard the debate on the radio this morning and I read the foreword to the report by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. There is a legitimate debate to be had; personally, I find some of it quite insensitive and not acceptable, but people have a legitimate right to express views about Zionism and the State of Israel. They also have a right to express concerns about the Government of Israel and some of their policies and plans. However, we are absolutely clear that they do not have a right to any abuse that attacks the individual or to incitement to physical violence. We are protecting the rights that we have fought so hard for, including the right to be educated in our universities.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has accepted that every individual, regardless of when or how they pray, has a right to be educated and feel safe while that is going on. Can he go a little further and tell us what process the Government will introduce to ensure that those groups feel safe while they are being educated?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hope I have indicated the range of actions we are taking in my responses so far. Of course the Government condemn all racial and religious hatred in the strongest possible terms, and we strongly encourage universities to take steps to foster the cohesion on campuses that I mentioned earlier. However, we make no apology for acting decisively to tackle the unprecedented rise in antisemitic abuse in universities, particularly since October 2023.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will not make the mistake—I ask him not to—of linking what is happening to Gaza and the events in the Middle East. What is happening is that antisemitism is being used as an excuse. It has always been there—I was talking about this 15 or 20 years ago—and it reveals a certain rot in the culture of our universities. Will the Minister agree that there is a gap in the Lords’ scrutiny? We do not have a Select Committee on education. We should, because that will be a way of bringing the lax vice-chancellors here to answer for their lack of action. I hope the Minister agrees.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

A Select Committee is not a matter for the Government, of course. The noble Baroness may also be putting me in a different position because I am a member of the Liaison Committee, so I would not want to take a position that may inhibit my ability to make a view on that committee. I totally accept what she says: as we debated on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, antisemitism has been around for a long time and events globally are often an excuse to exploit it. I accept that completely.

However, that does not mitigate the fact that people have genuine concerns about what is going on in the Middle East and the actions of the Israeli Government. They have a right to express those concerns and differences, but the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right about what they do not have a right to be. I have seen antisemitic abuse being addressed in tube stations; I have seen it when I go home. It is based on what people perceive others to look like and it is terrible. We need to address it very strongly.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the advisory board of the Union of Jewish Students, and I wrote the other foreword in the shocking Time for Change report, which is out today. Polling for the report of 2,000 students in this country found that one in five—20%—said that they

“would be reluctant to, or would never, houseshare with a Jewish student”.

There are terrifying case studies in the report, including the experience of Jewish students in Birmingham who were followed home, and whose pursuers lingered outside for several nights and told passersby to

“remember this address as Jews live here”.

I have listened very closely to my noble friend the Minister. We have had a number of debates in this place, but the situation is unfortunately getting worse, not better. In the wake of today’s report, what urgent action can be taken to reverse these horrific findings?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that I read her foreword too; I did not just focus on that of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. She is absolutely right to draw attention to this, and I urge people to use BBC Sounds to listen to the debate and discussions on the radio. The Government are not at all complacent; I have already indicated the specific actions we will take, which included my noble friend Lady Smith hosting a round table to bring together Ministers from the Home Office and MHCLG with Jewish community stakeholders, including Jewish students. We are trying to bring people together to ensure that specific action is taken.

I also reassure my noble friend Lady Berger that condition of registration E6, introduced by the Office for Students on 1 August last year, requires English universities to publish and implement comprehensive policies to prevent, investigate and tackle incidents of harassment against students. It is vital this work continues, but my noble friend is right that we have to draw attention to the rise of antisemitism.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, this has been a significant issue in Manchester for all my time as Bishop and I am glad we are having this chance to consider it. What assessment is being made of the extent to which external actors—we have heard about university lecturers, but maybe even foreign Governments—are fuelling this? To what extent can the multifaith chaplaincy teams that many of our universities have be part of the means of addressing it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises a really important point. After the outrageous events in Manchester, my right honourable friend Bridget Phillipson wrote to all universities, drawing attention to their responsibility to address this issue. Our universities have a world-class reputation, which makes them a prime target for foreign states and hostile actors that seek to erode their reputation by shaping or censoring what universities can offer, as we are seeing at this moment. We are tackling that threat by investing £3 million to bolster existing support and access to expert advice on national security risk management, including a new academic interference reporting route and new guidance.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, we are in a dark place. The Union of Jewish Students has been around for over 100 years to look after the welfare of the Jewish students on campus, but the fact is that Louis Danker, the chair of UJS, had to write this report, Time for Change, when he should be looking after the welfare—and the fun—of Jewish students on campus. In this report, 82% of students regard calls to “globalise the intifada” as antisemitic—I am unsure what the other 18% are thinking. Jewish students and the Jewish community hear that phrase as a call for violence against the Jewish community. Does the Minister accept that allowing such rhetoric on campus and on our streets undermines the safety of Jews throughout this country? Like others have asked, what practical steps can HMG take to rid us of this despicable intimidation?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that people’s political views about the Middle East are often used in a very abusive way that I personally find very offensive, but this does not actually stop individuals saying that they do not agree with Zionism, or with the State of Israel, et cetera. It is not illegal to express those opinions. What is very much illegal is to incite the hatred that we have seen evidenced in this report. That is where we need to take clear action.

I am sorry to keep quoting the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein—I am trying to prompt him to get up—but he pointed out in one of his articles that his own father, or grandfather, was very much an anti-Zionist and that Zionism was not a tradition in the family. But the experience of Jewish communities throughout the world after the Second World War and the horrendous Holocaust has meant that the State of Israel represents something else: it represents that security and that place they can go to when facing the horrendous antisemitism that we are seeing on the rise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Polak, but we have to be very clear about free speech and balancing it with addressing the horrible things that antisemitism can give rise to.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I had not intended to speak, but when I listen to the Minister linking over and again the problems in the Middle East with antisemitism, I am disappointed. They are two separate things. There is an incredible rise in antisemitism where Jews cannot go around in the street wearing a head covering or a Star of David—a Magen David. That is the problem. The Minister talks about confusion because of events in the Middle East, but it is not the same thing. Zionism can mean different things to different people. The Zionism I believe in is that there should be a homeland for the Jews. After the events of October 2023, there has to be a homeland for the Jews. That is my Zionism. It has nothing to do with treatment of Palestinians, because Palestinians have rights as well. The Minister constantly muddles up the two in his reply. Antisemitism in this country needs to be handled and I want to know what the Government are going to do about it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Can I be very clear? I hope noble Lords were listening to what I said. I was not conflating the two. There has to be a clear separation. Let us not confuse the two. I have been a strong supporter of the State of Israel for many years and I was an active supporter of Poale Zion, so my views are clear. We are more effective in addressing antisemitism by calling it out for what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said it was. It has been around for 2,000 years and has nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East, but people are inciting hatred by using the Middle East. That is what I was trying to convey. I hope the noble Lord will understand that my position is very clear.

Equality Act 2010: Section 106

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made regarding the implementation of section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, “Information about diversity in range of candidates, etc”.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data on the diversity of their candidate selections in accordance with regulations. Officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision. Careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the supporting regulations and whether any phasing might be needed in implementation. Officials will consult with stakeholders in due course.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. It is encouraging to know that some action is now being taken, but does he agree with me that the reason why the House of Commons now has the largest number of women MPs is that political parties took positive action to ensure that they fielded women candidates? The same could be done now when looking for diversity, which is what we need, through Section 106. Will my noble friend guarantee that it will be implemented in time for the next general election, so that we see a much better diversity after that election than we have at present?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think my noble friend knows full well my position. When I was general secretary of the Labour Party, I was strongly behind having all-women shortlists, which has meant that 40% of Labour MPs are women. Implementing the policy would clearly demonstrate progress towards better representation among candidates of the population they seek to represent. As I said in my initial Answer, this is not simply a question of switching on the provision: careful consideration needs to be given to the requirements of the necessary supporting regulations and whether any phasing might be needed in implementation. Officials will of course consult with stakeholders, including political parties, in due course.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, women make up only 30% of this Chamber. If the Government are serious about having women represented at all levels of decision-making, what actions will they take to enable more women to sit in this Chamber?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness. Until the Life Peerages Act, this House was absolutely full of men, so progress has been made and we should not underestimate that progress. I suspect that after today’s decision, we will make even more progress in due course.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the implementation of Section 106 is going to help a great deal, whenever it comes. As well as this, is there some way that there could be a recommendation that all parties report that they have considered prioritising gender equality in their selection criteria?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. One of the things that is still to be determined is precisely what protected characteristics will be included under Section 106. In the EHRC guidance to political parties was a range of actions that could be taken to ensure diversity, including support for people with disabilities and other actions. We should be very proud that many of the political parties have taken action. We need greater transparency so that we can see what progress has been made.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, I completely agree that measuring the number of people who are applying to participate in politics is a vital mechanism to enable us to manage that process. Does the Minister have any thoughts on the emerging trends—including increased hostility online, for example —that might prevent women being involved in different levels of politics across all different parties, on what some of the barriers to participation for women and other minorities are, and on what impact that might have on democracy in general?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. Sadly, many people out there seek to stop the widest possible engagement in our political process. We have seen that through harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, and particularly women Members of Parliament, and what we have seen has been shocking. That intimidation, which is not just restricted to women, has a huge impact on the willingness of people to seek public office. That is why we are taking specific action, making plans to extend the disqualification order to protect electoral staff, empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse those who uphold our democratic traditions, and removing the requirements for candidates’ home addresses to be published. It is a sad indictment of where we are, but those are important protections for our political process.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, given the failure of the Labour Party to find any female leader as yet—a full party leader; my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—will the requirements of this section apply when the Labour Party next seeks a new leader?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows full well that we should not judge our ability for representation on one person. He referred to my noble friend the Leader of this House, and I am a protected characteristic as a gay Deputy Leader of this House. It is important to see Section 106 not in terms of the headlines but in terms of the whole of our political activity and the people involved in it. Councillors at a local level are just as important as Members of this House.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, what specific measures will the Government take to address disparity in the representation of underrepresented groups in roles across public sector organisations, and how will the progress be monitored and reported?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

That is precisely what Section 1-0-sex—106, rather—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not want to see that in Hansard, by the way. We want to ensure that candidates reflect the communities they seek to represent —that is the purpose—and transparency is a key tool to ensure that. When we consult, we will look at all the measures contained in the Equality Act and Section 106. We have not yet decided what characteristics would be included, but the noble Lord makes an incredibly important point about the need to take action.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Party is proud to have had four women leaders, and I am proud to be part of a House that has had so many successful women in it. I think about the late PD James, the late Baroness Audrey Emerton, my dear friend Baroness Helen Newlove and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the House now. We believe that when people with a range of experiences come together, better decisions are made. Can the Minister say what practical steps the Government are taking to encourage more women, and young women in particular, to take an active role in politics?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We can take a number of measures and, focusing on how young people generally can engage in our political process, that involves education. We had an excellent Select Committee report on precisely that issue. The noble Baroness makes a very good point about the range of people we should have in our representative democracy. That includes people who do not necessarily have the high level of education of some but who have huge life experience, which can contribute to our deliberations. We are taking action with education and support, but political parties themselves have a responsibility, which is what Section 106 is about. Each of us can do more to ensure that representation.

Gibraltar Treaty

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their questions and contributions and I welcome their support for the agreement. There is no doubt that this is good for Gibraltar. I declare an interest: I was a union official representing members in Gibraltar for 30-odd years, so I visited it on numerous occasions. I also went there and experienced it when there were difficulties on the border. In fact, I represented 10,000 Moroccan workers who were based in the barracks in Gibraltar when the border was far from open, so this is good news. Sovereignty is not, and never has been, on the table. In fact, the agreement safeguards it explicitly, and the double lock we set out at the beginning has been fully respected.

I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we expect the signature next month. Following the signature, the treaty will be laid under CRaG in the usual way, and we will follow the appropriate parliamentary processes. There are, of course, parallel processes on the EU side that must be observed. There is no doubt that we will follow CRaG, and Parliament will be able to fully scrutinise the treaty.

This really is good news not only for the economy and the people of Gibraltar—as the noble Lord said, 15,000 people will be affected, and this has the support of Gibraltar—but the economy of Gibraltar is 90% service-orientated and the cross-border employment created is also having a positive impact on the region in Spain, so it is good news for Spain as well. Certainly, when I first went to Gibraltar, La Línea and the area around that was one of the highest areas of unemployment in Spain. So, this really is good news.

I can also reassure the noble Lord that British citizens have always been subject to immigration checks in Gibraltar. That has always been the case. Certainly, as a union official, I could not work in Gibraltar unless explicitly approved by the Gibraltar Government. Immigration and entry into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. As the noble Lord said, as we speak, the Gibraltar Parliament is considering the treaty. The principle we have adhered to in these negotiations is “Nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”, and we have been clear that that will continue to be the case as we move forward.

We are also clear that, as is normal in these types of agreements, a range of mechanisms are available to help the parties to resolve disagreements. Certainly the expectation is that we will resolve those issues amicably through dialogue, and if that is not possible then there is a formal dispute resolution mechanism that includes the possibility of using independent arbitration to resolve the issues. Lastly, although we hope it does not come to this and no one expects it to, there is the ultimate insurance of a unilateral termination clause that can be used in the event that it becomes apparent that the agreement is not working for us or our Gibraltarian partners. So it is clear that all the guarantees that we have sought, particularly those regarding our military operations and facilities, are there.

I am pleased that the noble Lords welcome the agreement and that, after five years of uncertainty for the economy, we now have a situation where we can move forward that will support the continuation of Gibraltar as a British territory but under the control and determination of the Gibraltar people.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I have visited Gibraltar many times, and I trust the judgment of the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who has welcomed this draft treaty. However, its publication has echoes of the Windsor Framework, which was supposed to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom but has instead diluted UK sovereignty over the Province, where EU law now increasingly dominates, has created a major trade barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and has significantly increased costs for consumers. How confident is the Minister that the draft treaty has been properly thought out and will not leave Gibraltarians in the same position as Northern Ireland, subject to a diktat from Brussels over which they have no say? Might it also increase the risk of Gibraltar’s proud British identity being compromised by a Spanish Government who have long wanted to have their own flag flying over the Rock?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

There have been a number of occasions when the noble Lord and I have been in Gibraltar together, so I certainly understand and fully appreciate his commitment. However, I want to be clear that we were not willing to enter into an agreement that the Government of Gibraltar were not content with. They are fully supportive of the agreement, which they judge will be good for jobs and businesses in Gibraltar, for the people of Gibraltar and indeed, as I said earlier, for the prosperity of the whole region.

Gibraltar is not joining the EU single market or Schengen. It will align with some laws through its own domestic system, mainly in relation to immigration and customs. The Court of Justice of the European Union will not have jurisdiction over Gibraltar but will have a limited interpretative role in resolving disputes over EU law. Accordingly, Gibraltar courts will factor CJEU rulings into their consideration when ruling on matters that touch on EU-aligned law in Gibraltar.

However, let us be clear: we know that Gibraltar is a small place geographically, but it has huge potential for service industries. That is where the jobs are coming from and where Gibraltar exports, and this agreement will guarantee that for the future. With all parties agreeing to that, we can see a prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

What increases will there be in taxes, excise duties and handling charges? How much money will be sent to Spain for levelling up? What are the estimated costs of all the additional regulation? Is this not rather bad for business in Gibraltar?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think a single businessman in Gibraltar would agree to that. As the noble Lord said, 98% of the people in Gibraltar, through their referendum, supported the continuation of membership of the EU. The EU benefited Gibraltar in terms of cross-border trade and prosperity. The situation since Brexit has been five years of uncertainty that has impacted on businesses. What the Gibraltar Government fully understand, but perhaps the noble Lord does not, is that their service industry is their biggest export—that is what generates jobs. Other customs and tax issues are for the Gibraltar Government to agree, but they will work in concert where that does not impact on the trade that they seek to expand upon.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in Spain. I very much welcome this draft treaty. I think it is very much for the benefit of the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain. There is reference in the helpful note prepared by the Foreign Office to various “Parliaments with an interest”. The note then goes on to say:

“The Government will … work closely with the Government of Gibraltar, the EU and Spain”.


Can I ask about ratification? Does this treaty need to be ratified by the European Parliament, the British Government, the Gibraltar Government and the Spanish Government—or not? That is one question. Secondly, there is reference to indirect taxes in Gibraltar being imposed without adopting VAT. Can the Minister explain what that means?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

This is a treaty between the EU and the United Kingdom and obviously the EU has consulted and engaged with the Spanish Government, who are supportive of the EU agreement. We have been consistent, as I have said before, and there has not been a single meeting without the Gibraltar Government and the Chief Minister being present. That will continue in any discussions. On the tax and customs relationship, there will be changes, not least because the border will be open for goods. The days when I bought 200 cigarettes and put them in the boot of my car to get across that border are well over. Cigarettes will undoubtedly cost roughly the same in Gibraltar in the future as in the EU. That is still substantially lower. I notice the noble Lord smiling at me—it is about time he stopped smoking.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have recently joined the European Affairs Committee. Does the Minister agree that it might be better, when we consider all this, to take on board what the Government of Gibraltar think its impact will be on business in Gibraltar, rather than, with all due respect to him, what the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, thinks?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is right. That is the principle we have adopted. In tomorrow’s newspapers, particularly those in Gibraltar, we will read that the Parliament of Gibraltar agree. It is a matter for Gibraltar; it is good news and I think we should appreciate that.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, it is good to hear that the Minister has a personal connection with Gibraltar and experience of working there, because there is so much misunderstanding about what Gibraltar is and who the people of Gibraltar are. Will he confirm that his Government recognise that Gibraltarians are not and never have been Spanish, that they are Gibraltarian, that they want to remain British, and have always said so? Will he further confirm that his Government recognise the strategic importance of Gibraltar as a base for the Royal Navy—an integral part of NATO operations in the Mediterranean and the surrounding district—and that that will always be respected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Absolutely. The noble Baroness knows my commitment to Gibraltar. This Government are committed, and Minister Doughty has been absolutely clear about that in all the negotiations. I repeat, nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar; that is the key. Nothing in the agreement, either now or in the future, will fetter our ability to operate unimpeded at the naval base. This was a firm condition for us, and Spain has been co-operative and is a key NATO ally. My noble friend is sitting next to me; MoD officials and Ministers have been closely involved in the negotiations and the Defence Secretary fully supports the agreement. It is absolutely a commitment that we will maintain.

[Lord Barrow (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the conclusion of these negotiations. This has been years in the making and I know from first-hand experience how tough the negotiations were. However, this is a UK-EU agreement, so how will the Government of Gibraltar be involved in decision-making if it comes into force? What will happen, for instance, if the Government of Gibraltar feel that the agreement is no longer delivering the hoped-for economic and other benefits?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and hope that I made the position clear at the beginning. To repeat, Minister Doughty wrote to the Chief Minister yesterday, making these principles absolutely clear. In fact, the Chief Minister read out to the Gibraltar Parliament the principles about which we have been clear throughout the negotiations: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. The agreement has been negotiated to ensure the long-term continued security and prosperity of Gibraltar. The United Kingdom will exercise its powers on the termination or suspension of its obligations under the agreement only following full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, whose wishes and views we will follow. That is the principle to which we will stick rigidly.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

It is wonderful to hear the phrase “nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar”. How much Northern Ireland would have wished that was the case when we were having negotiations with the European Union; however, that is a matter not for the Minister but for the previous Government, who would have done well to take that on board.

To follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about dispute resolution, in the past Madrid has caused some difficulties for Gibraltar by closing the border and what have you. Are the Minister and the Government happy with what has been put in place to deal with any difficulties that may arise from Madrid? That would be really important for the Gibraltarians, who have suffered in the past.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right—the Gibraltarians have suffered in the past, as I have personally experienced and seen. That has had a serious impact on the economy of not only Gibraltar but the local surrounding area. We are clear that dispute resolution processes and mechanisms will be available to both parties and are sure that any situation is best dealt with through agreement. However, if it cannot be resolved amicably, there are processes in place that we are certain will work.

What we have seen over the past five years of negotiations is a determination for all parties to see this as a way to ensure the success of Gibraltar’s economy and its continued opportunity for employment for 15,000 people in the local area. Both Gibraltar and Spain are benefiting from this agreement.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Purvis about provisional implementation before 10 April.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not have a clear answer on that. We have a process; the treaty has to go through a formal process in the EU. But I think today’s debate in the Gibraltar Parliament, where I hope there will be unanimous agreement—I share the noble Lord’s aspiration—will ensure that there is a stability about the future. People know the way they are now going, which is getting rid of that five years of uncertainty that we have seen since Brexit.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, many years ago the commander-in-chief of a commando brigade invaded Spain when they were meant to be exercising in Gibraltar. That was quite embarrassing, but my question relates to the military. I have not had a chance to look at the totality of this treaty, but what I have heard about it is very good. Will we still be able to use the Z berth for nuclear submarine repairs in Gibraltar? Will we be able to store the whole gamut of weapon stocks that we have, without any interference or checking from the Spanish, and will we be able to do both air and maritime operations from Gibraltar, without any aspect of those coming under the purview of Spain?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to declare what arms we have where at the current time, but the reality is that nothing in this agreement will affect our ability to operate unimpeded. That is absolutely guaranteed and the MoD has been involved, certainly in respect of our naval operations out of Gibraltar. The noble Lord also mentioned the airport and elements of the agreement relating to it. Obviously, there is oversight of the company running its commercial civilian aspects, but these do not affect RAF Gibraltar. The terms of the agreement fully protect the operations and independence of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar. The airfield is run and managed by the MoD; the agreement does not change this one bit.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we have the current slightly bizarre situation where British military aircraft flying into RAF Gibraltar are not allowed to overfly Spanish airspace. Is that resolved by this treaty or not?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Nothing impedes our operations and, of course, Spain is a NATO ally and we work co-operatively with Spain. One of the really good things about this agreement from a civilian point of view for Gibraltar International Airport—again, this is an important point on the economy—is that flights will be able to operate across Europe, including to Spain. That will create opportunities for the airlines that operate out of Gibraltar. It is a tourist destination in the area, so great opportunities can exist from this agreement.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, in the other place the Foreign Secretary stated that uniformed Spanish officials will be stationed at checkpoints only at the borders. However, various commentators have since warned that these same uniformed officials will be able to operate within the territory away from the border. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance on this very important point?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not think there is any confusion. There will be border checks, but the key difference is that it will operate so that there is freedom across the border. The border will be open in the terms of the agreement, which is significant, but flying into Gibraltar there will be checks. Those checks are required and will be operated on the same basis as we have, for example, with the French in St Pancras. We have border controls in London done by the French. A similar sort of operation will be conducted in the terms of this agreement.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend kindly write to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about flights into Gibraltar over Spanish land? I only ever visited in 1977 and 1979, in solidarity when the Spanish had closed the border. It is a great place for tourism but, if I remember correctly, there is a very tight turn on the aircraft because of the inability to fly over Spanish land.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Commercial flights were obviously limited because there was no opportunity to fly anywhere else in the EU. I have flown there many times and have done that sharp turn; it can be pretty frightening. The really good thing about this agreement is that it opens up Gibraltar International Airport to other EU destinations and other destinations in Spain. I think that is a really good thing that will change. I repeat that the agreement does not impede any of the activities of our defence operations, whether that is the RAF or the Navy.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister a point of clarification? I think I understood him to say this in his opening statement. Is it the British Government’s legal position that the nature of entry requirements to Gibraltar is a matter for the Gibraltar Government and not the UK Government?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it has always been the case. Believe it or not, that also happens in Jersey and the Isle of Man. It is not an unusual situation. I have visited Gibraltar on numerous occasions and had to go through those checks. If I wanted to stay for any lengthy period, I had to request permission from the Gibraltar Parliament.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that these negotiations have been taking place over many years and have included the noble Lord. I pay tribute to Minister Doughty and his team for all that they have done, and the Governments of Gibraltar and Spain. Does my noble friend agree that this deal concludes the final chapter in the Brexit deal and leaves us free to pursue a modern, mutually beneficial economic relationship with the European Union?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Those aspirations are not necessarily reliant on each other. The really good thing is that this agreement is for the people of Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar. I agree with my noble friend: Minister Doughty has worked tirelessly with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to achieve this agreement. On whether it will influence our future, we all know that the prosperity of our country and Gibraltar requires good relations with the EU. That is our objective and we will continue to do that.