Qatar: Israeli Strike

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Pannick

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his question. The work that the current Government are doing is very much building on the work that he did when he was in government and the relationships that he established between this country and Qatar. I reassure him that we see Qatar as a continuing bridge between the different parties in the conflict in and around Gaza. Qatar is to be congratulated on the way in which it has tried to bring the two sides, Israel and Hamas, together to try to create a peace settlement. As the noble Lord points out, we continue to discuss with the Qataris how we might bring about an immediate ceasefire, see the release of the hostages and bring an end to what we are seeing in Gaza. Qatar remains crucial to that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is day 706 of the detention of the hostages who were abducted on 7 October. The need for settlement negotiations is even more urgent than it was last week. Will the Government do all they can to urge the Government of Qatar to continue their most valuable efforts to secure some sort of settlement of the appalling tragedy in Gaza?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. Part of everything I have said in response to this Urgent Question has been to highlight the crucial role Qatar has played, is playing and will play in the future. What should ring out from the questions noble Lords have asked and the statement I am making is that we are grateful. We admire greatly the Emir, his Government and the people of Qatar for the fact that they are willing, and have said so publicly, to continue their efforts to bring about the release of the hostages and that peace settlement. They are to be congratulated for that. We do not take it for granted, but we admire and respect their fortitude in the face of what happened.

UK Defence and Aerospace Facilities: Protests

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Pannick

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We have sought to explain that. We have said that the security in place at that time at Brize Norton was not good enough. The noble Earl will have seen that since that incident we have been looking at what we do to improve and enhance security in the short term in our military bases, and in the longer term. The point that needs to be reiterated is that the people at fault are those who thought an acceptable way to protest was to break in—whatever the rights and wrongs of how they were able to do that. We all agree that it was unacceptable that they could do that. Why on earth do some people think it is acceptable to break into an RAF base and put at risk this country’s national security? It is not, and I am glad that through the proper processes people have been charged and we will see what the outcome of that legal process is.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the criminal penalties for violence and intimidation are perfectly adequate; what is necessary is for the police to identify the ringleaders and the perpetrators quickly, for the prosecutions to be brought to court without delay and for the courts to impose severe sanctions that deter those people?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord provides my answer in the point he makes in the question. Of course, that is the right thing to do. Through the appropriate legal processes established in this country, in a democracy, the police investigate according to the priorities they set, and we see this as a very real priority. An investigation is held and if the police have the evidence and believe that the charging threshold is met, they will charge and then it is for the courts to determine guilt or not. The court will then put in place the appropriate punishment. That is the division of responsibility in this country. That is what we are standing up for in Ukraine and across the world and, going back to the noble Baroness’s point about young people or others and fighting for our country, I think democracy, freedom and the rule of law are pretty good things to fight for. They are not bad things to stand up for.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Pannick

Report stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord spoke about legal certainty. Could he help the House on how a court is to determine whether disruption is “prolonged”? If there is locking on and I am unable to take my child to school or my mother-in-law to hospital for an hour, two hours, or 10 hours, is that prolonged?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is the point I am making: there is of course going to be a debate about what various words mean. I have admitted it. I said to the noble Lord and to others that I have asked in the debate what “significant” means in certain situations. All I am saying is that I want to set the threshold higher; I want the threshold to be at a level at which “serious” can be used, rather than the “minor” level which the Government seek to introduce, supported by other noble Lords. Of course there will be a debate, whether about what I have put forward, or about “minor”, or about what “hindrance” means in certain situations. But this Chamber should be saying to the courts that what we mean by “prolonged” is that it has to happen not just once. It has to be more than a daily activity; it has to be something that impacts on the life of the community more than once or twice. That is what we are saying and that is why I am putting forward these amendments. I want the courts to realise that, when this Chamber passes these amendments, we are saying that serious means serious.

Of course there will be a debate about what that actually means. It is the same as with any other law we pass—it does not matter which one. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has much more experience in this than I do, but, in the end, the courts will have to determine what it means. We will come on to “reasonable excuse” in a minute, but I think the courts would want to know that this House has debated it. I am saying that “serious” means more than minor, and that “prolonged” means more than daily. In the end, the courts will have to determine that. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that would be true whatever wording we use in the Bill: there will be a debate in the courts as to what it actually means. I want the courts to debate what “serious” means and what “prolonged” means. I do not want them to debate what “minor” means because the threshold starts too low.