Gaza: Ceasefire

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the tragedy of Gaza is going to continue until Hamas is removed from power? Can he explain what he wants to say on this subject to Ayelet Epstein, who is watching these proceedings and whose son Netta was murdered by Hamas on 7 October when he successfully shielded his fiancée from a grenade?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have repeatedly said to the noble Lord in this Chamber, we are committed to building a future where the Palestinian Authority is the authority for all Occupied Territories and it is defended and protected to do its job. There is no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza.

Gaza

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Obviously, the situation is incredibly complex, but if there is one thing that I think will be key to finding a solution, it is the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. That is key, and there must be a Palestinian component in that. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside US President Trump and his team in the coming weeks to bring it about. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to that peace process, but we are certain that if we can ensure that that normalisation between the Saudis and Israel takes place, we can progress rapidly.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Palestinian component, as the Minister describes it, exclude Hamas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that I have made it clear, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we are working with the Palestinian Authority; we are supporting the Palestinian Authority, and there is no place for Hamas in the governance of Gaza.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.

I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.

In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of Hamas’s abhorrent policy of torturing hostages, what action is being taken by His Majesty’s Government, together with our allies, to prevent Hamas from continuing to occupy any position of power and authority in Gaza? Does the Minister accept that the two-state solution, which he mentioned and which I and many others support, is not going to happen until Hamas is removed from power and authority?

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister was asked about safeguards. Can he confirm that the safeguards in the Bill, which we debated at great length in its various stages to ensure fairness to those listed, will apply in exactly the same way to those persons accused of human rights violations as they apply to all those listed for other reasons under the Bill?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked the questions that I considered appropriate. I will not delay the House, but will repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in terms of an amendment we jointly agreed to, ensuring that fair process is considered in relation to this aspect of the Bill.

I very much join other noble Lords in welcoming the Government’s change of heart. There was opposition from the Government on these principles, and we had a successful amendment on human rights being the centre of foreign policy.

I welcome completely the noble Lord’s commitment. My honourable friend Helen Goodman also took the rather unusual step of signing the Government’s Magnitsky amendments, despite the fact that, in Committee, the Government had opposed her own amendments. I welcome very much the new consensus and hope that it is a sign that we can move forward with greater clarity in terms of foreign policy and human rights.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, this group of amendments is focused on a subject matter that we repeatedly return to: namely, parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the actions of the Executive. I want to focus primarily on how we enable Parliament to do the job of scrutiny. Amendments 65 and 68, in particular, are designed to ensure that there is relevant information in relation to actions to revoke or introduce regulations. I know that the Minister will say that because regulations will be placed before Parliament there will be a scrutiny function there—but I think more than that is needed. We say that an affirmative decision is required, and also that the reasons should be clearly stated and set out in a written memorandum by the appropriate Minister. So the theme that we are returning to, and focusing on, is enabling Parliament to scrutinise, and giving it the tools to do that job.

There is a power under Clause 35 for an appropriate Minister to suspend regulations “for a specified period” —no period being specified, of course, because that is subject to regulations. I keep coming back to the fact that, in the exercise of powers, it is important to put certain principles on the face of the Bill. We would insert a requirement for the time period to be put in. We must understand that the power of the Executive to suspend regulations or other sanctions has the potential to cause compliance uncertainty for business. There could be uncertainty about when and on what terms a sanction may be reimposed, or whether it could be revoked entirely.

The purpose of the amendment is to create more certainty for all those involved, and by doing so to introduce more effective compliance with sanctions. Considering the aims of those sanctions, that is very important. The persons or entities that are subject to suspended sanctions may still be affected by reputational stigma. It is important, in terms of procedural fairness, that these issues should be properly addressed.

The group is focused primarily on parliamentary scrutiny and enabling Parliament to do that job effectively, and I have also put my name to Amendment 72, to Clause 44. I look forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. In my opinion that clause gives the Executive an overwhelming power, which the Minister will have to give very good reasons for retaining. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned Amendment 72, which is in my name and his, and in those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It concerns Clause 44(2), which is a very broad Henry VIII clause. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, repeatedly argued during earlier debates in this Committee and elsewhere, we should not be giving Ministers powers to amend primary legislation without very strong justification. Clause 44(2) would allow Ministers to take action,

“amending, repealing or revoking enactments”,

including primary legislation,

“(whenever passed or made)”.

It contains no limitations on those powers. For my part, I cannot see any justification for including such extensive powers in the Bill. I strongly suspect that such a provision is included simply because it may turn out to be useful at some time in the future. We in this House are seeing too regularly provisions of this sort and we ought to take a stand against the conferral of such sovereignty on Ministers.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, just said that the legislation should contain what a reasonable trade unionist would expect to see on the ballot paper. For my part, I am having difficulty understanding the criticisms that have been made of Clause 4. There is some substance to them, but the clause is not “provocative and narrow-minded”, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested. Surely, if one is to have a ballot that will be of vital legal significance in identifying whether the union and its members will be immune from legal action, it is perfectly reasonable to provide that the voting paper must give those who are voting basic information about what they are voting for.

Three items are mentioned in Clause 4. First, the voting paper must include an indication,

“of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates”.

That seems to me perfectly reasonable. The criticism may be justified in the words “reasonably detailed”. I understand the criticism of those words because there is a danger that they may lead to legal difficulties. If those words are removed, what is the objection to the person voting being told expressly and clearly the matters in dispute that he or she is being asked to vote on?

Secondly, where the voting paper,

“contains a question about taking part in industrial action short of a strike, the type or types of industrial action must be specified”.

What is wrong with that? It is a perfectly reasonable basic requirement. Thirdly,

“the voting paper must indicate the period or periods within which the industrial action or … each type of industrial action is expected to take place”.

Again, the reasonable trade unionist who is being asked to vote surely needs to know the length of time for which the industrial action is going to take place. Concerns have been expressed that these provisions may lead the trade union to put in, as was said, the kitchen sink. I should have thought that any trade union that did that would be very badly advised indeed, because it would be likely to confuse the members and far less likely to satisfy the statutory thresholds.

I am particularly puzzled by Amendment 27, which would provide that these new provisions,

“do not apply to any ballot where there is an agreement between the employer and trade union”.

Surely that leaves out the interests of the employee. There may well be an agreement between the employer and trade union, but it may not work to the benefit of individual employees. Therefore, I think there is some force in some of the criticism, particularly of the language in new subsection (2B)—“reasonably detailed” —but the criticisms are very substantially overblown.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

May I ask the noble Lord about that “reasonably detailed”? My noble friend referred to the kitchen sink, but a pay claim may have several items within it, perhaps as many as 20, some more important to some groups within a firm than to others. There is a balance to be struck. The trade union balances that in negotiations and often has to choose, but of course the trade union is representative of those employees; it is not an outside body. At the end of the day, it is those employees who have the vote.

My problem with “reasonably detailed” is what you leave in and what you leave out. When I was a trade union official and we faced the possibility of a legal case—the possibility that we would be challenged—the tendency was to say, “Let’s put in the kitchen sink to make sure that we do not get it wrong”.

[Lord Pannick]

That is precisely why I expressed my understanding and support for the suggestion that the words “reasonably detailed” are unnecessary and may well be counterproductive. I see the force of that criticism, but only that criticism. Let me add that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was concerned that this would require the trade union to put in its demands; it would not. What it requires is that the voting paper must indicate the matter or matters at issue. If we take out “reasonably detailed”, I cannot see the objection to a ballot paper indicating—not setting out in detail, but indicating—the matter or matters in dispute. That seems perfectly reasonable.