Homosexuality in Nigeria and Uganda

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

We know that the church has networks in both Uganda and Nigeria. Indeed, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has called upon those networks in discussions in order to use them as influence and opinion-formers in those countries. We will continue to make sure that that contact remains strong.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, will the Government support the recommendation of the Eminent Persons Group to the 2011 meeting that all Commonwealth nations should now be required to respect the rights of homosexuals?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord will of course be aware of the Commonwealth charter, which specifically talks about the importance of non-discrimination on any grounds, including homosexuality.

European Union Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brittan of Spennithorne]

My Lords, at this stage in our proceedings we have to do two things. First, we have to decide whether we are persuaded by the arguments put forward in the other place that what we have decided here should not stand up. Secondly, we have to decide, if we are not persuaded, whether we stand by what we have done or whether we acquiesce in what the other House has decided.

My fundamental objection to this Bill and my support for the amendments that we passed is based on a view which has not much to do with European affairs at all, but a great deal to do with the British constitution. Up to now, we have had a constitution in which the referendum, until modern times, had no role whatever. We had sufficient confidence in parliamentary government to believe that the representatives of the people should be responsive to the people but not slaves to the momentary wishes of the people, and that that was the right way in which decisions should be taken. A breach was made, 25 years ago, 35 years ago or more, but one breach and one breach only. This legislation changes the balance dramatically by making referenda, instead of extremely rare, things which could be extremely common.

The amendments that were passed by this House mitigate what I consider the damage to the British constitution a small degree. The question is, are we persuaded by the arguments put forward in the other place that the mitigation that we introduced is something which we should no longer support? I am not so persuaded, because the amendments that we put forward were quite modest, still leaving a Bill which breached—in my view unnecessarily and undesirably—the principle of parliamentary government, but they were mitigatory amendments and therefore we supported them in this House, and we passed them in this House. Nothing that was said in the other House persuades me that we were wrong to do so, because the balance of the constitution in which a referendum is a rare instrument, applied only in exceptional circumstances, is one which I continue to support. I am not persuaded by the arguments put forward in the other House that the modest amendments that we put forward, which would reduce the plethora of amendments and other referenda from a flood to a trickle, were undesirable. I was persuaded last time we discussed this that they were desirable, and I remain of that view now.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I too support this amendment, because I see it as a considered response to the views of the other place. It supplies a criterion which identifies when it is appropriate for a referendum to be held. Since mention has been made of the views of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I am a member, I will remind your Lordships of the three points that the committee made in its report on this Bill.

First, we noted that, in our earlier report on the use of referendums, we concluded that if referendums are to be used they should be confined to fundamental constitutional issues. Secondly, we noted that this Government had expressed agreement with that criterion in the context of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Thirdly, we concluded that it could not be said that every treaty change which would, under this Bill, require a referendum, would involve a fundamental constitutional issue.

My answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, is that I understand this amendment to impose a duty on the Minister in good faith to consider whether the issue is one of economic or constitutional significance, and if so to lay a Statement before Parliament. I do not accept that this leaves matters entirely to political judgment: it imposes a criterion, it is a considered response to the Commons view, and I hope we will support the amendment today.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I support the amendment. The main consideration is that if the Government do not relent on this question they will be in denial on issues to do with the workability of the scheme. I will give some examples.

First, it is proposed that these referenda be mandatory on the Government. Secondly, it was said by the noble Lord in a previous session that it might be rather inconvenient if there were a whole string of different referendums and so they could be grouped together in some way for the purpose of having them on a certain date. The issue of EU energy taxation being extended or some other legal question on an industrial matter might be put together for the purpose of the referendum day. This taxes the imagination. I have tried to imagine that I am sitting listening to a conversation in a pub in Burton-on-Trent. After all, this is the demotic that we are all being asked to say is so much more important than parliamentary democracy. So, I am sitting in a pub in Burton-on-Trent, and after a discussion on what is running in the 2.30 at Newmarket, Fred says to his mate Alec, “What are you doing on this thing that they want us to vote on tomorrow?”. “No idea, Fred, it’s all Greek to me”, replies Alec.

How do we know that the people want all these referendums? How much time would elapse in Brussels if we simply, as the awkward squad, sat for several months on a whole string of items until the famous day when they could be brought together? That looks so totally unreasonable that people in Europe—they are friends of ours, presumably; we are in a Community—might say, “If you are a member of a club, you ought to be more co-operative than that. If you carry on as you are, you might as well get out”. If we held a referendum on staying in or getting out, I am pretty confident that the staying in vote would win. There might be consensus on that, but it is not the subject of this amendment. This is a vicious circle. If you want to be a member of a club, you have to co-operate. If I carried on like this in my tennis club, it might be suggested that I joined another club more suited to my temperament. The Government do not have the candour to say what they want to do because I do not think that some of their members would agree with that position. However, they want to go as near as they can to implying what they want to do.

In practice, this amendment meets the test set by the Constitution Committee. I think that there is consensus in the House on it.

Israel: Illegal Settlers

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Behind the right reverend Prelate’s question is a fear which I and many share. There could come a point when there is so much building and intrusion that it cannot even be contemplated as part of the swap of lands or anything else in a final negotiation. This reinforces our determination to bring to bear on the Israelis the necessity of continuing the moratorium on new building and to realise that in the eventual negotiation settlement this matter has got to be reasonably settled so that there can be a viable Palestinian state.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords—

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, if both noble Lords are quick, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to give an answer—first, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and then the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a more fundamental obstacle to a peace settlement than the settlements in the West Bank, which occupy some 5 per cent or so of that territory, is the failure of Arab states to introduce into their own countries the rule of law and the right to freedom of expression which would promote a real debate in those countries about the true interests of the unfortunate Palestinian people?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is of course right that the issue of settlements is difficult. It is not the only issue and there are many broader considerations on which he has quite correctly touched.

Korean Peninsula: “Cheonan”

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

Have the Government considered the possibility of expanding or encouraging the expansion of the jurisdiction of the ICC so that it would have a role in relation to conduct within a state that does not recognise the powers of the ICC?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We debated these matters closely in this House—I cannot remember whether the noble Lord was a Member at the time—and looked at that possibility. The Government have no plans to do so at present.

Gaza Flotilla

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is one step down the line. The first thing is to find out what happened, who is guilty and whether we are looking at a botched operation by the Israeli elite corps, as most people in Israel are admitting, or whether we are looking at crimes that require punishment. That lies far down the line, so I do not think that this is a time for ruling in or ruling out.

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister said that there must be an international inquiry. Does he accept that there is every reason for confidence that an inquiry conducted by an Israeli judge—should the Israeli Government proceed along that route—would be independent and thorough, given the well deserved reputation of the Israeli judiciary for independence and protecting the human rights of all those whose interests have been considered by the Israeli courts? Is the Minister aware that the criticisms of these unhappy events from outside Israel are loudly echoed within Israel by many politicians and by large sections of the press and the public? Has he seen the editorial and other articles in yesterday’s well respected Haaretz newspaper, the flavour of which is given by its headlines, “The price of flawed policy”, “A failure any way you slice it” and “Bibi the schlimazel”—that is, a person who stumbles from one calamity to another?