Digital ID
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Ludford(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Ludford(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Baroness Ludford(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.
We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.