Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for emphasising that point, because I think it is really important. I also thank him for his congratulations on my appointment as Special Envoy for LGBT+ Rights. That is an additional task I am extremely willing to take on, because in the current global climate, it is important that we can set out how we and our values in this country are so important—how we have taken the lead and that lead has shown other countries how to behave. We are absolutely clear on that. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of that because, in my recent travels, I attended the conference of the Organization of American States, where I met 200 civil society activists from across Latin America, central America and South America who were talking to me about the sorts of pressures that they were under as LGBT people. It is unbelievable the pressure that they are under, but they were determined to highlight how progress can be made. Progress can be made by seeing the example that this country sets, and we should not underestimate that.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I appreciate the Minister’s intention but will the Government note that already family lawyers have warned that allegations under this law—not another law—as drafted, with its loose definition of “abusive” and so on, could indeed trigger criminalising parents; for example, if you are a mum who says to a teenager who says that they are born in the wrong body, “No you’re not”. That is a challenge to their identity, and that could even trigger social services investigations. Does the Minister hear those voices? Does he appreciate that in this pre-legislative scrutiny period, the last thing we want is consensus? What we need is scrutiny and proper and robust argument, so that we draft the law that the Minister obviously wants but is not the one that is written down at present.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness that scrutiny is about challenge. I have no problem with questions being asked. I have no problem in addressing the issues that have been raised this afternoon. I have attempted to give very clear reassurances, as did my honourable friend in the other place, that the Bill will not interfere with the rights of parents, will not impact on the rights of medical people giving advice, et cetera. We are talking about horrendous abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, knows what I am talking about, because he has heard people tell others about their experience. Serious harm and abuse, that is what we are talking about. We all know that much of that remains hidden and is not talked about because people are afraid to express it. That is why I think it is really important—I come back to my original point about the gaps in the law—that when people understand that what they have suffered is subject to law, is subject to the possibility of prosecution, I think we will find a lot more people coming forward, and that is good for them and it is good for this country.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.

I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?

This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will say very briefly I have no doubt that the Government do not want to lead to the sacking of workers through this Bill. However, when the Minister seeks to reassure us with the conclusion that it will be left to the discretion of the employer, I say to the Minister that those are dread words for anyone who is an employee of said employer if you are in dispute. As this Bill is about enforcing consequences, nay punishment, I do not care whether the Minister intends that people are sacked, I simply point out that that could be the consequence even against what the Government want. I hope the Government will reconsider this and bear in mind that it is to do with freedom, rather than coercing people: the freedom to go on strike and withdraw your labour, which is something that all sides of this House should support.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment D1 and address some of the issues the Minister mentioned. Of course, when I spoke in the earlier debate, I focused on the fact that, when it comes to minimum service levels during disputes, what works are voluntary agreements—and that is across the world. I repeat that what this Bill does is undermine co-operation and voluntary agreements.

The fact is that this Bill will place trade unions in the unacceptable position of being asked to ensure that members who vote for industrial action do not take part in that action. It is a complete contradiction of their role. My amendment would remove the obligation on the union to take undefined reasonable steps. The Minister referred to the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I appreciate the Minister attempting to meet me and my noble friend to discuss what “reasonable steps” might mean. Sadly, the two-page government amendment that he gave me placed huge burdens on employers and unions—the complete opposite of what this Government say they want to achieve.

The simple fact, as I mentioned on Report, is that if a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation, it could mean that the strike is regarded as unlawful and that protections such as automatic unfair dismissal protection could be removed from all striking workers, including those not named in the notices. Again, if a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation, the strike could be regarded as unlawful, and that then opens up all kinds of consequences.