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.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government with which organisations they are consulting regarding the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.

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

My Lords, the Minister is following the process in the Equality Act 2006 and is consulting the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. As set out in the Act, the EHRC operates independently of the Government and is responsible for drafting the code and consulting such persons it thinks appropriate. It consulted on the code from 2 October 2024 to 3 January 2025, and again from 20 May 2025 to 30 June 2025 on updates to the code.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. By law, the Secretary of State has only two choices: to either lay the code before Parliament or send it back to the EHRC. She has dithered for five months over this binary decision about 11 pages that are at issue. If kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, this Government would be favourite for the gold medal. But this is serious: thousands of organisations are desperately waiting for the code of practice to make sure that they comply with the law. When will they get it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let us be clear, the updated code was received on 4 September. The draft updated code is undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. We are reviewing the draft code with the care that it deserves. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is totally inaccurate and unhelpful.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The Minister will be aware that organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding have described their current difficulties arising from the draft code as costly and difficult. How will the Government and the EHRC reduce anxiety about the code, so that organisations can act proportionately, inclusively and realistically, rather than facing an uncertain situation in which the main beneficiaries are lawyers and plumbers?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. The EHRC submitted its draft code to Ministers, and we are reviewing it, as I said before, with the care that it deserves. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly. The code will have implications for service providers up and down the country. It is vital that we get this right.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chief Whip. The Minister will remember that on 2 February I asked him to confirm whether the Government were in full compliance with the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, across all the public services and functions that they deliver. He gave an unequivocal, one-word answer: “absolutely”. I tabled a Written Question the following day, asking him for the evidential basis for that assertion. That Question is now nearly 10 days overdue, so this delay thing seems to be catching. When will I get an answer to that Question, and is the Minister still prepared to stand by his assertion that the Government are in full compliance with the law across all the public services and functions that Ministers are responsible for delivering?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I will repeat my answer: absolutely. I also responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who asked a supplementary to the Question. I have taken the precaution of reading the letter received by Maya Forstater, the CEO of Sex Matters, which sets out the reasons for our review of the code. Obviously, the Government are absolutely committed to complying with the law and the judgment of the Supreme Court. There is no doubt about that. But what we want to do, and as we are doing with the EHRC code, is to review all policies. The policy in the code is not about just one issue: it covers a whole range of protected characteristics. Some of the people who are most concerned about the implications of this are people with disabilities. We should be very careful of saying that we must do something straight away. We are complying with the Supreme Court judgment, and we are not going to deviate from that.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Good Law Project v the EHRC, Mr Justice Swift described the statutory framework as providing a minimum requirement and not a “ceiling”. How will the Government work with the EHRC to ensure that the code reflects this proportionality-based structure?

[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.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says. I understand his concerns; I do not think it is good practice to have legal challenges. They do not actually resolve anything. What will resolve things is to get the code accurately and robustly reviewed and properly published. The updated code is, as I have said, undergoing review by policy and legal teams in the Office for Equality and Opportunity. This is a lengthy and legally complex document which will impact service providers up and down the country. Rightly, we are carefully considering it. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering it very carefully.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

There are hundreds of documented NHS trusts which still have unlawful policies with regard to the provision of single-sex hospital accommodation. The NHS policy annex B continues to authorise the placement of biological men on women’s hospital wards. Will the Government act now and instruct these organisations to follow the law? If they continue not to, can they explain when they will act?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat what I said to the noble Lord. There are many policies in existence that will obviously need to undergo review as a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment. That review will have implications, for not just sex but all the other protected characteristics. Many of these policies cover a whole range of issues. The fundamental point, which I made to the noble Lord, is that the Government and all government departments will comply with the law. That is my answer to the noble Baroness.

Single-Sex Spaces: EHRC Guidance

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will set a target to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on single-sex spaces before the first anniversary of the guidance being sent to the Equalities Minister.

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

My Lords, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for services, public functions and associations provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely on sex and gender reassignment. The EHRC has submitted its draft code to Ministers and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. It is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I say to the Government that the inexcusable delay in operating this makes it look like political party management is being elevated above the national interest. That is not good enough.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me reassure all noble Lords. We have set out our expectation that service providers follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice wherever necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently. We have always been absolutely clear that due process needs to be followed by all, in line with the Equality Act. Our priority is getting it right. That is why it is so important that we give it proper and due consideration.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said in answering the numerous questions on this topic that the code must be legally robust. In the absence of any significant leaks to the press over the last few weeks, can the Minister clarify what tests are being applied to reach that conclusion before the code is approved and laid before Parliament?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness understands that, although there has been speculation in the media, it is crucial that providers have legally robust guidance on how to apply the Equality Act, which is why we are considering the draft code properly. We have always been clear that proper process needs to be followed so that service providers have certainty over these issues and are not placed in that legal jeopardy. That is why we are absolutely consulting with all, including the EHRC.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am not surprised that the draft code is being carefully considered, as the Government say, because multiple government departments, such as health, justice, local government and employment, all need consistency in a cross-government approach. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that equality or human rights objectives are consistent across departments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, we have a duty to properly consult. By the way, under Section 14(9) the Equality Act 2006, that also involves consulting with devolved Governments at all relevant stages. Consultation with the Welsh and Scottish Ministers is required, as the code fully relates, but it also relates to all public authorities. Of course, the EHRC has conducted its own consultations on its code twice, but it is important that we fully understand the implications of the ruling.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Given that the law is already in force and the Supreme Court has made it clear what that law means, can the Minister confirm that all public services that are delivered by Ministers and the Government are in full compliance with the law, as set down by the Supreme Court, today?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Absolutely.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a great admirer of my noble friend Lord Rooker. When I worked with him on the secondary legislation committee, he would always ensure that the Government had done their homework, particularly on issues which were fraught and divisive, so I will ask my noble friend the Minister about one particular piece of homework. Can he give an assurance that small businesses will be given sufficient clarity and flexibility to stay within the law, and not be forced into making adjustments to their property which they cannot afford?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. To repeat what I said to the noble Lord, the Supreme Court judgment is absolutely clear and everyone has a duty to apply it. That includes not just public bodies but everyone. To come back to my noble friend, if there is any doubt then, obviously, seek appropriate guidance—seek legal advice. We want to make sure that, when the code is finally adopted, it is legally proofed and cannot be open to further challenges. That is why it is so important that we get it right.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, perhaps this is a very obvious question to come from a bishop, but these are matters that affect people’s sense of dignity, their identity, belonging and everyday lives. Can the Minister say how the Government are ensuring that, alongside legal clarity, the approach taken in considering this draft code reflects compassion, respect and kindness towards all those affected, so that the guidance not only supports compliance but will encourage a much-needed culture of mutual understanding?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate could not have said it better and I strongly believe that. It is really important that we understand that the duties of the Equality Act reflect a duty on us all and apply to all the characteristics. But the Supreme Court judgment is very clear; we have to apply it, and we are determined to do so. That is why it is important that we have a code that can stand any robust challenge.

[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.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government have concerns about the lawfulness of the EHRC code, given their five-month review of 30 pages, have they received any advice from the Attorney-General regarding his assessment of it? When was the Attorney-General consulted?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness knows that I am not going to go into legal advice from the Attorney-General. This is not about whether the guidance or the draft code is compliant legally; it is to ensure that the guidance can be adopted and applied by everyone without future legal challenge. That is what I am saying very clearly. It is robust guidance. After all, it has never been the position to say that the code is not legal. The code may well be, but we want to ensure that it can be applied properly and adopted by all public bodies and companies.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons consider that it is appropriate for the details of the work of the learning centre to be dealt with otherwise than in this legislation.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motion A1. It is a pleasure to bring back this important Bill to your Lordships’ House. The ambition to create a new national memorial to the Holocaust has been pursued by successive Governments, with support across all parties, for a number of years. The need for such a memorial and for a learning centre, which will remind people of the terrible facts of the Holocaust, seems only to have increased during this time.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to noble Lords who participated in the early stages of this Bill, in particular my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, who worked so diligently to promote the Bill through its earlier stages in the House. I also acknowledge and thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for his commitment over many decades, commemorating and learning from the Holocaust. I was delighted to hear today that he has been invited to attend a special session of the Council of Europe on Monday to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.

I recognise that there are many different opinions and strong views about the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre, especially regarding the proposed location. Earlier debates on the Bill addressed those matters in depth. Today’s debate will focus on a much narrower question, though a question of considerable importance. On Report, the House supported the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which aimed to ensure that the sole purpose of the learning centre should be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. I recognise that the intent and the sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure that there is no mission creep and that, in the focus of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, there should be no attempt to divert attention from the unique nature of the Holocaust.

I appreciate that Motion A1 has the same sincere objective of ensuring that the learning centre remains focused on education about the Holocaust and anti- semitism. That is what the Government want to ensure and intend to do. I am personally committed to that. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and other noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report. We had a very fruitful and frank exchange, and I think we were at one. I am grateful to them for engaging in constructive discussions about the amendment, including the Government’s view of why the Bill is not the appropriate instrument for creating the safeguards that noble Lords intend to put in place.

As with the well-intentioned amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, we do not consider that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is appropriate for the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the purpose of the Bill is to do two things. First, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door, in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent.

Given the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged in the amendment would create a good deal of uncertainty as to its enforceability. In the absence of wider provisions around governance, it would be unclear who would be held accountable for any breach of the requirement and what the consequences would be. Operation of the learning centre in these circumstances would carry risks. It would be difficult for the governing body to be sure what types of activity could fall outside the permitted range, and it would be open to the opponents of the learning centre to challenge any activities and create obstacles through litigation.

Through the discussions with those supporting the amendments, we agreed that a more effective approach would be to focus on the governance arrangements for the body which will, in due course, have responsibility for the operation of the learning centre. The noble Lords have, I hope, agreed to support the removal of the amendment from the Bill in return for certain assurances. My honourable friend the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities gave those assurances in another place yesterday, and I am delighted to repeat them tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have had extensive debates on the Bill and I know there are strong views across the House on a whole range of issues relating to the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We were right to debate this important Bill in full and scrutinise its every aspect, but now we have just one issue before us. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on his success on Report and we were delighted to give him our support in that Division. We have worked closely with him and in discussions with the Government to secure the concession that the Government have made in response to his amendment.

It is very welcome that Ministers have confirmed that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism and that there will be no question of it drifting from that purpose. That commitment is an important step towards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am pleased that he and the Government have come to an agreement on this, and we will continue to support him.

I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me and other noble Lords to get to this point. Like many other noble Lords, I give very big thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. He was a joy to work with as we went through what was, in the early stages, a difficult—probably the most difficult —Bill I have ever been involved in, and I thank him for that.

Next week, on Tuesday, it is Holocaust Memorial Day. I believe it is fitting that tonight we take what I hope is one very big step forward in the delivery of this memorial to the 6 million men, women and children who perished in the Shoah.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this evening’s debate. I do not want to delay us too much, but I want to reflect on a number of comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who has been doing excellent work on Holocaust education, and I have followed him in many places, trying to make sure that his message was repeated. I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, earlier today and I mentioned that I went to Bratislava to attend a memorial event in a square, but it was not limited to that. We then went to the concentration camp, the transportation centre, and I saw at first hand where people, including children and babies, were kept. The impact of that will always live with me. A memorial is not enough, which is why the learning centre is so vital.

I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we cannot bind a future Government. We wanted to look at how we could ensure that the purpose was fully maintained. The Bill does not have all the governing structure or all the stuff that we need. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, but his advice about how we can enshrine the purpose in those trust agreements was essential.

The most important thing—and we have heard this today—is that we leave tonight united in one purpose: that we do not forget the 6 million who were murdered or the consequences of the Nazi crimes. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, he knows where I stand on the crimes of the Nazis. Of course, the very first people they imprisoned and murdered were trade unionists who were standing up for workers’ rights, and we need to understand that. I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said to me this morning: that antisemitism did not start with the Nazi crimes. It has been with us for 2,000 years. We need to ensure that we understand the impact, not only of the past but on the living, and I think she is right.

Why have we not put it in the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said it all. In the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged could create difficulties and uncertainty in its enforceability, and I want to see us united on the way to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wolfson, have helped me in how we can deal with that.

I also reassure noble Lords that further consideration will be given to the different forms of governance which might be right for the memorial. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has asked me to do, we will give an assurance that those proposals will be published, including the governance documents that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to.

I understand the points the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has made. He has made them fully in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hanson is here, who can actually take these points up on how memorials are protected.

Digital ID

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, following yet another U-turn from this Government, I—and, I am sure, other noble Lords—have a number of questions. First, can the Minister tell the House the Government’s current projected cost of this digital ID programme and whether the £1.8 billion figure previously cited remains the Government’s own estimate? Can he also tell us how many public services now require citizens to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway, rather than as an option? Which of those services are legally required to operate only with the DIATF-compliant identity assurance? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not? What whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred, and has any personal data been compromised?

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

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. On costs, the Government do not recognise what the OBR reported as an accurate cost for the programme, because the scope of the scheme, and therefore its cost, has not yet been decided. The design and delivery will be subject to a public consultation, following which we will have a clearer idea.

The noble Baroness asked about the GOV.UK One Login, a subject she has previously raised with my noble friend. It follows the high standards of security for government and private sector services, and about 9 million to 10 million people have been using it. The programme adheres to the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice to ensure that its data is protected, fraud is detected and threats are monitored and responded to. More specifically, we are aware—I think this is the point that the noble Baroness is making—that the nature of cyber threats is changing and that there is an increase in the number of attacks against the United Kingdom. The Government are committed to improving resilience among operators of essential services, including through legislation currently before the Commons that will update the UK’s regulatory framework.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the previous proposal as a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion, so we welcome the Prime Minister’s U-turn in saying that digital ID, after all, will be voluntary. Can the Minister therefore confirm that no citizen will face any disadvantage, delay or reduced access to public services if they choose not to adopt it? Further, given that GOV.UK, which is the foundation of this system, has met only 21 of the 39 NCSC cyber assessment framework outcomes—the noble Baroness referred to that, and I was assured by Ministers that the outcomes will be met by this April—will the Minister halt expansion until independent assurance confirms that it meets all mandatory security standards?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not want to repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, but I assure the noble Lord that we are absolutely focused on those standards and on better understanding new threats, which is why legislation is being considered by the other place. After all, we are talking about how people can access government services properly without complicated hurdles to go through constantly. Having one access is important, so the scheme will be available at no cost to the individual and to all British citizens and legal residents from the age of 16, subject to the consultation. It will be introduced after the technical build and primary legislation are delivered in around 2028, and underpinned by robust privacy, resilience and security measures. I stress that all citizens, in time, will be able to get the new digital ID, but it is not compulsory. We will consult on minimum wage.

We are ensuring that it is inclusive and that, whatever the Government do, we maintain inclusivity. Rolling out a free national digital ID will be accompanied by a massive inclusion drive across the United Kingdom. This is an opportunity to empower the vulnerable and the left-behind in our society. Inclusion will be at the heart of the design and delivery, and no one will be disadvantaged as a consequence of the scheme.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister fell into the same trap as his colleague at the other end of the Parliamentary Estate by saying that the digital ID would be free. He may quibble with the OBR’s assessment of a £1.8 billion cost, but it is not going to be free, is it? Why do the Government think that a government-designed ID system is going to be better than just setting some standards and allowing the private sector to provide solutions that people can use instead?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I repeat that the cost has not been determined yet, because the scope and design of the scheme have not been agreed. That will be subject to consultation. Any cost in this spending review period will be met within existing settlements. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that all services that the Government provide in the United Kingdom are properly accessible in this new day and age. I do not think that is something we should leave to the private sector. We want to be leading it, so I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assertion.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, this saga, and particularly reading about the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, in the Times on Saturday, reminds me very much of 20 years ago, when Tony Blair and colleagues tried to introduce an ID card system. The way it was put by Mr Jones was that it is going to offer access to nearly all public services except, crucially, the NHS—that is a big exclusion, so it is not quite as convenient—and that it is a kind of magic bullet that will solve all your problems. It is very reminiscent of what happened 20 years ago. Have the Government learned lessons from that fiasco 20 years ago? Can the Minister assure us that there will not be a centralised database? Actually, he cannot, because there will be a centralised database of everyone’s IDs, which will be a honeypot for cyber criminals.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The world has moved on from 20 years ago. We are talking about recognising the opportunities that this new age presents for us—certainly in the provision of public services. Darren Jones was absolutely right to focus on that. We are not going to create a central database. There will not be that “honeypot” opportunity, as the noble Baroness put it. We are determined to ensure that those systems can talk and communicate more effectively with each other.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that this is a typical example of what is now alleged to be “broken Britain”? We were moving forward in 2010 to deal with the changes that were taking place, and it was abandoned by the alliance. It was thrown out, and here we are again with the same problems facing us. Can he please give us an assurance that what is now before us will be stuck to and will not be withdrawn or watered down?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I appreciate the comments of my noble friend. We have an absolute determination, and this is what Darren Jones was talking about, to deliver better public services and make them more accessible to all people who have traditionally been excluded and disadvantaged. We are determined to do that. To reassure my noble friend, the whole point is that, fairly soon, we will launch a consultation so that we can hear from all those people who have a concern about public services and how they access them. We are determined to do that, and I am sure that, as a result of that consultation, we will have a better policy and better delivery of public services.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because it is appropriate for workers who meet the qualifying criteria to receive a guaranteed hours offer without having to make a request for one.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.

I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.

By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.

On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.

There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.

My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.

I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.

I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.

I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.

The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.

The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.

I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

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

Ex-offenders.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.

There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?

[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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.

7A: Because it is unnecessary; the Bill already produces the effect provided for by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.

23A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

--- Later in debate ---

120A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.

47A: Because requiring employers to permit workers to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings by persons other than trade union officials or other workers would likely lead to an increase in the cost, complexity and length of such hearings.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.

I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.

The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.

I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.

Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.

Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?

It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.

They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.

It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.

48A: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.

61A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

72A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.

We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.

It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.

Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.

I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.

I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Lord Burns]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.

There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.

I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.

I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.

I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.

I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.

The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.

62A: Because it is appropriate to remove the provision that industrial action is regarded as having the support of a ballot only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in the ballot did so.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.

Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)

Moved by

Starvation as a Weapon of War

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The simple fact is that millions of people today are dangerously malnourished because of conflict, and too often this malnourishment has devastating consequences, in particular for children. It has severe and often irreversible impacts on their physical growth, cognitive development and immune system, perpetuating a cycle of poverty and ill health, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted.

It also impacts on the very thing we want to achieve: economic development. Growth, jobs and education are the key elements for changing this disastrous situation. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is absolutely right about malnutrition: addressing nutrition is the foundation for real change. The Government of course acknowledge that the deliberate deprivation of food, water and other essentials for civilian survival is a growing and persistent threat.

Let me address the questions from my noble friend Lord Browne and other noble Lords on ODA and the current situation. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that for us to achieve a safer and more prosperous world, we need to address aggression, particularly the prevention of conflict, which is a priority. Certainly, the difficult decisions we have made have been in response to the aggression committed by the Russian Federation. But I stress what noble Lords have heard me say before: ODA is not our only tool in ensuring peace, prevention and development. We need to use every tool in our toolkit to ensure that we can focus. A key element of that is supporting those conditions to ensure investment and increase trade. We are absolutely focused on that.

Promoting compliance with international humanitarian law is at the heart of our foreign policy. Our debate has underscored a sobering truth: as many as 70% of major food crises are directly linked to conflict and insecurity, according to the World Food Programme. We have seen patterns of sieges, blockades and denial of access in multiple contexts, so ably evidenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, whose personal experience is true evidence of this terrible situation. In too many cases, these patterns are not collateral consequences of war; they are being used deliberately to weaken, punish and displace civilian populations.

It was against this backdrop that, as the Minister covering Africa and human rights, I attended the launch event in May this year for the Government’s legal handbook on conflict, hunger and international humanitarian law. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, this handbook is not only a guide for our diplomats, lawyers and Armed Forces but a very important advocacy tool, setting out clearly what the law requires of all parties to conflict, including non-state armed groups. This is important because famines are significantly less likely to occur if all warring parties, including non-state armed groups, comply with international law.

The handbook also firmly backs UN Security Resolution 2417, as my noble friend set out, which helped the United Kingdom in 2018 when we joined the consensus on the amendment on the intentional use of starvation as a method of warfare in non-international armed conflicts—which was adopted, as she rightly pointed out, by the ICC Assembly of States Parties in 2019. Our position on ratification remains under review. The simple fact is that we need to ensure a very strong coalition for action, as she pointed out.

Many noble Lords also referred to Gaza, where we are witnessing a catastrophic man-made famine. As the Prime Minister said, the welcome ceasefire agreement must be implemented in full, without delay, accompanied by the lifting of all restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza. To respond to my noble friend Lord Browne, the Foreign Secretary delivered a very strong message at the UN Security Council on 23 September. We also led joint statements with over 30 partners, pressing Israel to allow food, medical supplies and fuel to reach those in most desperate need. The ceasefire is that opportunity to get desperately needed humanitarian aid in there, fast.

We are also funding a £74 million aid package this financial year for Palestine and Palestinians across the region. Alongside our diplomatic efforts to increase humanitarian access, this is contributing to providing food, shelter and support for over two million people. There is no doubt that this is saving lives.

Many noble Lords, but my noble friend Lady Brown in particular, along with the noble Lord, Lord, Oates, highlighted Sudan. We are deeply alarmed by the UN fact-finding mission’s findings that starvation has been deliberately used there as a method of warfare. No one could have failed to be moved by this morning’s BBC “Today” programme, which had first-hand evidence of the impact of that starvation on not only the civilian population in general but children in particular, and its absolutely horrific consequences. As my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, almost 25 million people are acutely food insecure, and almost 9 million are on the brink of starvation. This is absolutely abhorrent. I congratulate the BBC for reporting on that, but we are not getting sufficient focus on Sudan, and we need to do more.

As the third largest humanitarian donor in Sudan, we have already provided aid to over 2.5 million people since the conflict started. To reassure noble Lords, we are using our position at the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council to call out violations and demand rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access. At last year’s UNGA, I also led a meeting where we brought in first-hand evidence from the victims of sexual violence and from those who were suffering as a consequence of food deprivation. In October, we led efforts to renew the UN fact-finding mission’s mandate for a third year, securing the strongest council support and reinforcing the independent mechanism investigating human rights abuses across Sudan.

I will briefly mention Ukraine. We are fully committed to holding Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions, and we have welcomed the agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe to have a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. It is a good example of how we can hold people to account. We are absolutely strong supporters of the ICC, and we are determined to hold those responsible for serious violations of IHL to account. To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, we are also supporting Ukraine and the training of its troops in international humanitarian law. It is a good idea to see how that works in practice, and how we can spread that good practice.

It has been a great, important debate, focusing on issues that are often too silent. We must ensure that starvation must never be a weapon of war. We must never be silent when it is used as one, because protecting civilians is not optional; it is both a legal obligation and a moral imperative.