Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights and Political Situation

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and I am sure, by the way, that we will have dedicated Ministers in this House. The Government are committed to that, but do not be disappointed when I get up to speak for the FCDO. As the noble Lord well knows, the United Kingdom’s long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution on Kashmir that takes the wishes of the Kashmiri people into account. It is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator; it is for those two countries to come to a solution that satisfies the people.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the wider travel advisory for British nationals not to visit Pakistan, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, immediately replied that they would be visiting in their thousands anyway. Has the Foreign Office reviewed the meaning of travel advisories on a wider level? The country is regularly held to a kind of ransom by unsavoury regimes when their nationals—I say this in quotation marks—are taken hostage or held in unsavoury conditions. While I applaud the work of the consular service of the FCDO, I think the travel advisory system needs broader review.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear the noble Baroness, but the first priority of the FCDO is the safety of British nationals, which we ensure through regular consultation with our missions. Our advice is based on that principle, and our travel advice is reviewed regularly. Sometimes it is amended and it can be nuanced but, at the end of the day, it is up to individuals to consider that advice and take it seriously.

Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We will hear from Labour, then the Cross Benches.

[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.

For Women Scotland Case

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Single-sex Spaces: Equality and Human Rights Commission Guidance

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Antisemitism on University Campuses

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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—

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. The really important thing here is our focus on getting this code right. There are implications for a whole range of businesses and people up and down the country. We have set out our expectations that service providers follow the law, as clarified by the For Women Scotland ruling, and seek specialist advice where necessary. But it is for that reason, and that potential legal challenge, that we need to take time to get this properly right, so that the code can be adopted by everyone with confidence that they are following the law.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

We have had the shabby spectacle of the Government disingenuously arguing against their own regulator’s interpretation of the law in the High Court this past November. On 13 February, those arguments were comprehensively defeated and the EHRC unambiguously won the case on its interpretation in the interim update. Will they now come clean and say that they have no interest in defending women’s rights, and write to the EHRC, as the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, has said, to say they will not lay the code—or at least lay it forthwith, so that everyone can see the arguments contained in it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Standards in Public Life

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in all these things there needs to be a proper process. There is an issue around due diligence on Members being nominated from all parties; we all have to ensure that we have the right processes in place. The noble Lord, Lord Doyle, was approved by HOLAC on the information that it had available at that time. He now no longer has the Labour Whip and there will be an investigation.

I do not really want to get into speculating, when I do not know enough about the details, on whether an individual should have the Whip or peerage removed, but we have to ensure we have the ability to do that, which we do not at the moment. As we bring forward legislation on that issue, I will consult with noble Lords about the circumstances in which we think it is appropriate that someone should not be a Member of this House and, ideally, not have a peerage either.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right about the importance of the public having confidence in this House—indeed, in both Houses, but we are particularly concerned with this one—and I support her endeavours to achieve that. On the point just raised and on HOLAC—we have discussed vetting procedures as well—is there going to be an attempt in the review to find out what measures need strengthening with HOLAC so that impropriety can be brought to its attention? What I am specifically referring to here is this. If HOLAC has a name, and the name gets published by No. 10, and then information comes to light, can that preliminary announcement be exactly that—preliminary—with the ability for HOLAC to withdraw its consent once further information comes to light? Will she please look at that?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I am not aware that that is the case at the moment. Once HOLAC has made a recommendation on the information that it has, the case is not normally reopened. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness makes. All these things are in the mix to be looked at, to ensure that we in this House can be confident of appointments that are made to this House and how those appointments reflect on it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I am so sorry, but I have to apologise to the House. I needed to have declared an interest. I spoke last Wednesday on a Question on think tanks but did not declare that, the previous Monday, I had become a fellow of the think tank Policy Exchange. I have apologised to the Minister, who is sitting on the Bench, and to the Government Chief Whip, and I apologise to the House for that error.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to press the Leader of the House on what she said about legislation concerning your Lordships’ House. I welcome what she has just said about full consultation and the legislation not being rushed through, but, yesterday, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, referring to this legislation, said:

“We will bring the legislation forward very, very shortly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/26; col. 573.]


Is that compatible with what the noble Baroness has just said about full consultation? Is it her intention to try to get the legislation through all stages before the end of this Session?

Single-Sex Spaces: EHRC Guidance

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is a Minister in the Cabinet Office. I know that he would not have wished to have misled the House in his recent response to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. He assured the noble Lord and the House that all government is in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling. Is he aware that the charity Sex Matters wrote to the head of the Civil Service, asking for the Cabinet Office to withdraw the model policy on gender identity from 2019 because it was unlawful? The chief operating officer of the Cabinet Office declined to do so, despite acknowledging its unlawfulness. Can he explain to the House how he has made the statement that he is convinced that all government is in conformity with the Supreme Court ruling?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am a Minister with many responsibilities, and I am not sure that I am in the Cabinet Office at the moment. One thing I am absolutely sure about is that I am Deputy Leader of this House, and I would not wish to mislead it. I was trying to convey that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. It may not be what the noble Lord hinted at, but the Government are being very clear that there should be compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. That is why we want the code of practice, which the noble Baroness was obviously involved in, to be fully considered, properly accounted for and robust for the future. That is what we are determined to do, and it will result in all public bodies and companies being fully compliant with the Supreme Court judgment.

Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Minister, who has given very fulsome answers today. He referred to me. Therefore, I would just like to clarify for the House, because I know the Minister would not wish to mislead the House, that the time period needed for the code to be laid in Parliament is not 40 sitting days: it is 40 calendar days under Section 15 of the Equality Act. The further point that I want to clarify is that we were asked to provide the equality impact assessment last Friday. We provided it to the Government on Monday. We are here to serve the Government with any information that they need at pace.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, I have huge respect for her and the responsibility she has. It is a very serious responsibility. From her letter to the Secretary of State today and the debate we have had this afternoon, it is clear that we have to consider this matter seriously and take into account all possible risks and issues to ensure that we have a legally proofed code that is understood by everyone in respect of their responsibilities under the Equality Act. In respect of the 40 days, I must admit that my briefing does say 40 sitting days—but I am prepared to be corrected and I thank the noble Baroness.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to speculate on what we may or may not know about the outcome of those strikes, but what I do know and have repeatedly said—and the noble Lord is right on this point—is that ultimately only a diplomatic solution will deliver a sustainable, long-term solution. The Foreign Secretary has been in touch with Secretary Rubio, Foreign Minister Sa’ar, Foreign Minister Araghchi, our E3 counterparts, the EU high representative and our G7 allies. We have also spoken to all our allies in the region to ensure that we can put the maximum pressure to ensure a negotiated solution. We will use all diplomatic tools to support those negotiations, including, as I have previously said, the snapback facility.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, while I welcome the Government’s efforts in recent months a great deal, will the Minister accept that those who are calling for Iran’s current situation to be seen as a weakness may be gambling a little, because Iran has frequently demonstrated that when it is cornered it turns more belligerent? Is it not now time, on the back of Mr Witkoff’s success in reviving some kind of JCPOA, to concentrate on that part of the diplomatic story as well?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister responsible have been absolutely focused on diplomatic efforts. I also repeat that President Trump has made it clear that negotiations are the only sustainable, long-term solution to the nuclear threat that Iran poses. That is what we are working towards. I am absolutely confident that President Trump will be able to deliver that negotiated settlement, because it is in everyone’s interest.