Gaza: Ceasefire

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[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

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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

Lord Pannick Excerpts

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?

Military Interventions Overseas

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

That matter was alluded to yesterday. I said we would reflect on these matters in the usual channels. There was a debate on the Red Sea situation in the other place. I pointed out yesterday that we have a debate tomorrow in your Lordships’ House on Ukraine, on which there has not been a debate recently in the other place. The Government will continue actively to consider the best ways of keeping both Houses informed and involved in these situations.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Following the actions of the Houthis in pursuance of their slogan, “Death to America, death to Israel and a curse on the Jews”, and given the recent protest in this country in support of that appalling organisation, is it not high time for the Government to bring before Parliament a Motion to proscribe the organisation as a terrorist group?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we are sanctioning members of the Houthi organisation. I totally agree with his characterisation of the nature of that organisation, and I assure him that all these matters will continue to be kept under careful and constant review.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly emphasise the plight of the hostages, more than 200 of them, including children, the disabled and the elderly, the taking of whom is a despicable crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that it is in

“sustained, daily contact with Hamas”.

Will the Government urge the Red Cross to demand access to the hostages and to do everything it can to ensure their welfare, pending what we hope will be their return home?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we are making every diplomatic effort to secure that. Obviously, one is constrained by the environment in which everybody is operating and the people who have authority in that area. The United Kingdom Government certainly wish to see all hostages returned, and they should be returned forthwith. We hear that four have been released and that is very welcome, but these are human beings, not bargaining chips to be played with by terrorists to command media attention.

I focus on British nationals: we have to remember that not only were 10 British nationals, tragically, killed in the Hamas attacks but a further six British nationals are missing, some of whom are feared to be among the dead or kidnapped. Unfortunately, the reality of this situation is that the details of the effects of that monstrous attack are still only becoming clear, but we are working with Israel to establish the facts. We are keeping in close contact with other nations—and agencies, to respond to the noble Lord—to try to find a route to get the hostages released. The reality is that if Hamas had a single ounce of humanity, it would release all the hostages immediately but, sadly, they have already shown the type of people who they are.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the British Government will bend all their efforts not only to securing the release and safety of British people who are missing but to supporting all those who have been kidnapped, taken and oppressed in the way that my noble friend describes. We are talking to a range of organisations and nations—sovereign states and others—which may have capacity to bring to bear on the Hamas leadership. Whether that will soften the hearts of some of the people who ordered this atrocity I hesitate to forecast. However, I promise my noble friend that the British Government will pursue the action that he refers to.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the eloquent comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is personal for me. My wife is Israeli. We have a home in Israel. We have friends with family members who were murdered by Hamas nine days ago. The Statement mentioned international law. Do the Government agree that the obligation of Israel to respond in a proportionate manner depends in very large part on the severity of the threat which it faces?

Do the Government further agree that there can be no doubt that the threat is very grave indeed, since Hamas aims not to negotiate a peace treaty or to secure a two-state solution but to destroy Israel? It has the military capacity to send thousands of missiles and we have seen that it has the ability and the willingness, astonishingly, to enter Israel to torture, murder and abduct its citizens simply because they are Jewish. Hamas does not care whether they are supporters of the Netanyahu Government or of a peace settlement. They do not care whether they are religious or secular, whether they are babies or elderly ladies. Do the Government agree that there is no country in the world that would tolerate such a threat on its borders and that therefore a military response is the only available response to the threat posed by Hamas?

Finally, do the Government agree that international law does not prohibit military action which, sadly and regrettably, will lead to civilian deaths, especially when Hamas hides behind the civilian population? Does the Minister agree that the essential difference between Hamas and Israel is that Hamas aims to kill civilians—Jews—while Israel does all that it can to avoid civilian deaths?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I offer my sympathy and concern to his friends and family.

This is an unprecedented situation. The UK stands side by side with Israel in fighting terror. We agree that Hamas must never again be able to perpetrate atrocities against the Israeli people of the kind that the noble Lord has so eloquently referred to. The UK has a strong track record of supporting international law. That remains our position. We call on our friends and partners to do the same. Israel has stated that it will operate within international law. As the noble Lord said, every country is allowed to defend itself. It is not for the UK to define their approach. Israel suffered an appalling terrorist attack. It has a right to respond and defend itself.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not unduly take up the time of the Committee in introducing this amendment because my sense is that there are many Members who would not necessarily want to waste scarce parliamentary time unnecessarily.

My amendment is simple and straightforward: it proposes that, once the Bill has reached the statute book, if a Counsellor of State dies then the King may provide a replacement. It does not say the King has to do so; it simply says that he may if he wants to, and proposed new Section (1A) in the amendment provides the mechanism for doing so with the suitable involvement of Parliament. That is it.

The amendment is designed to be helpful. After all, the Bill is before us because the King has suggested that changing the Regency Act 1937 would be helpful to him in the discharge of his duties, and has asked us that two new names be added for life to the list of Counsellors of State. The Committee will know that both Princess Anne and the Earl of Wessex have already served in this role in years gone by.

As the Leader of the House said at Second Reading, it is the custom and practice for Counsellors of State to act in pairs, and he gave several examples in his speech. We saw that with our own eyes at the State Opening of Parliament when the Prince of Wales, as he then was, and Prince William, as he then was, acted as Counsellors of State and made it possible for this Session of Parliament to be opened. I believe that is the only time that Her late Majesty the Queen ever delegated these functions to Counsellors of State because of illness.

The Bill before us will solve the immediate problem and my amendment seeks only to avoid another, and to save some time. If one of the new Counsellors of State proposed in the Bill were to predecease the King, action would have to be taken again. We might even have to have a new Bill. Why? Because, as the Committee well knows, underlying the Bill is the fact that at least two of the existing Counsellors of State would not be publicly acceptable in the role that they would then have. That is why the King has recognised that there is a problem and why he has suggested the solution outlined in the Bill. My amendment is designed merely to help the King in future, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported on the Bill in terms that are regrettably rare nowadays. It said:

“This Bill contains no delegated powers.”


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has not had the opportunity here to complain about delegated powers, and I am very pleased about that. I should be very sorry to see a delegated power introduced at this stage, particularly a delegated power conferred on His Majesty. In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarch has three rights—the right to consult, the right to encourage and the right to warn. The monarch has no right and no power to produce delegated legislation. I can think of no precedent for the Crown having a delegated power—certainly not since 1689.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, presses his amendment with good intent. He has expressed his views at every stage of this process with the utmost civility and courtesy. I thank him for that.

I understand that, from his perspective, he seeks to add a certain flexibility or, as he would see it, some insurance to the system. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, implied in his important intervention, it would add further rigidity, novelty and potentially delay to the procedure. The steps in the amendment are not required and they are unwelcome. The amendment goes considerably further than the limited modification proposed in the Bill. As I submitted to your Lordships at Second Reading, the nature of this Bill flows from a message from His Majesty. I think it was the feeling of the House at Second Reading that the Bill is appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The noble Viscount is proposing a wider change to the underlying architecture of the legislation. As indicated in the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it would grant the sovereign a new authority—one which was not referenced in the King’s message—but does not indicate on what basis any such decision would be made. It would also introduce a novel parliamentary process into these matters. In this respect, it is a departure from the current framework and the proposition before us, and the Government do not believe that it is necessary or desirable.

I repeat that the Government believe that the approach suggested in the Bill is a reasonable and practical solution in the current context. The Bill as currently drafted will create a sufficient pool of counsellors who will hold this role for their lifetimes. As the noble Viscount will understand, with the effluxion of time, the order of succession will evolve and so will the situation once this Bill becomes an Act.

Although I acknowledge the spirit in which this amendment is tabled, the history of the Regency Acts demonstrates that it is a challenging task for Parliament or any legislator to predict the future. I suggest that we do not seek to do so here but seek rather to respond to the task at hand and proceed in the light of the message that the sovereign has sent us. It indicates his wishes and, I feel, the wishes of the House, that this practical, limited and moderate approach should be taken at the present time. I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking briefly to Amendment 2 I can also say that I will not be moving Amendment 3 because, in his reply at Second Reading, the Minister gave an excellent and wide response. Amendment 2 is designed to formalise the Counsellors of State after the accession of King Charles, adding the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal to the list.

It is constitutionally very important that when the monarch is not there, this will allow the Government to continue, because we have a constitutional monarchy. That means that some of the counsellors—all of them, probably—come from the family. It is a large family and I know that King Charles has previously said that he thought it should be smaller. I do not think he has said that since he inherited the Throne, but there we are. The interesting thing to me is, what is the concept of a working royal? The counsellors obviously support the monarch in his constitutional role, so, as I think the Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading, they clearly should be both in the UK and working, if for no other reason than that they know what is going on.

Parliamentary approval of counsellors is necessary, too, which is what we are talking about today, because there has been a history—if not recently—of monarchs going a little mad or otherwise breaking the law, as Parliament saw it. It is right that we prepare ourselves for the future. While it is also right that Parliament agree to the monarch’s proposal to add two Counsellors of State, I do not see why we cannot at the same time remove those who are no longer apparently thought suitable.

The Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading that

“the legislation already contains provisions whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas”

and that

“in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on”.—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. 1194.]

My Amendment 2 just tries to clarify that. Why not name the people concerned, rather than having to interpret what a working royal is?

I do not know whether this is from embarrassment or fear of a media frenzy. I hope it is not, but it is an important constitutional issue. It has nothing to do with who has what title or what clothes they wear for television appearances, or anything else like that. If the members of the family are not working royals, there is a fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned in his excellent speech on Monday, that the Duke of Sussex would jet in and claim that he was working because he thought that would be a good idea. A definition would be a good thing, and I see no reason why they should not be named in the Bill.

I am not going to press this amendment because I support the Bill, on the whole. However, a little clarification from the Minister, if he is able, would be very helpful. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it seems unnecessary to exclude the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York who, for reasons we all know and understand, are not going to be performing royal duties in the immediate future in any event. As to the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in proposed new paragraph (e), that there should be excluded

“any other person who in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor has not in the … preceding 2 years undertaken Royal duties on a regular basis”,

this leaves rather open for analysis what “regular” means. Does it mean once a month, once a week or once a year? What if they are ill for a period of time? The idea that the Lord Chancellor should determine this question without any criteria seems rather unsatisfactory. Mr Dominic Raab has more than enough to do at the moment.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I will make one small point. We will have five Counsellors of State, two of whom are not going to be used, namely the Dukes of Sussex and of York. That means that, since you have to have two Counsellors of State acting if the monarch is away, if either the Princess Royal or the Duke of Wessex were unavailable, we would have only Princess Beatrice left. We do not have anyone else on the reserves bench, so to speak.

I doubt whether we have heard anything, but noble Lords will recall that I suggested that the Princess of Wales should added to the list. I still think that would be a sensible idea because she will of course become a Counsellor of State when her husband succeeds to the Crown. Again, I will not support any votes, but the palace should look at this because you only need one person to be ill, and you have Princess Beatrice as a Counsellor of State. Although she is probably acceptable, she is virtually unknown.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill, which I support, would not justify a whole episode of the television series “The Crown”. However, it raises some interesting constitutional questions, despite the dismissal of its significance by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I would welcome the views of the Lord Privy Seal, in writing or when answering this debate, on those questions; I do not propose to table any amendments.

Section 6 of the 1937 Act which this Bill amends is confined to cases when His Majesty is ill or absent abroad. Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is anomalous that there could be no delegation to the Counsellors of State if the monarch were at Balmoral, unable to travel and unable to receive visitors because of snow or fog, but that there can be delegation if the monarch is in Paris for the day and easily able to receive a visitor or return to London to conduct urgent business? It seems anomalous that if there is a problem within the United Kingdom, no delegation can be made.

My second question arises from the fact that some of the most important royal functions have been performed by the monarch when abroad. For example, in 1908, when Edward VII was unwilling to interrupt his holiday in Biarritz, Mr Asquith was summoned there to be appointed Prime Minister. In the very useful House of Commons Library paper, Regency and Counsellors of State, written by Mr David Torrance and published in May this year, there is a reference to what happened when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was on a Caribbean tour in 1966. There was a request by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, for a Dissolution of Parliament. The assent of Her Majesty was contained in a letter sent to Mr Wilson.

We now have the advantage of videoconferencing and documents can be sent as email attachments. We have all sorts of modern communications and, one would hope, the occasions on which His Majesty cannot personally perform royal functions because he is abroad would be reduced. I entirely accept my noble friend Lord Janvrin’s point that ceremonial occasions are best performed in person and I suggest that important constitutional functions should be performed by the sovereign personally. The Lord Privy Seal emphasised the role of the sovereign in giving consent to legislation. Can he answer the question of whether, in principle, His Majesty could signify his consent to legislation from abroad, sending his signature by email—a point raised by my noble friend? Equally, could His Majesty appear by videolink from abroad to preside over a Privy Council meeting? These important functions should be performed by the sovereign personally.

My third question concerns the scope of the powers of Counsellors of State. There are limits on these powers, as we have heard: Counsellors of State may not dissolve Parliament, except on the express instructions of the sovereign; they may not grant any rank, title or dignity of the peerage. But, in academic debates, the question has arisen of whether there are implied limits on the powers of the counsellors. Professor Vernon Bogdanor, in his book The Monarchy and the Constitution, quoted a memo written in 1954 by Sir Edward Ford, assistant private secretary to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Sir Edward said that Counsellors of State have no power to make decisions. They are,

“if one may say it without disrespect to their persons—merely a piece of constitutional machinery—the nearest thing to a human rubber stamp that has perhaps yet been devised.”

Professor Bogdanor pointed out that the legislation provides no procedure for what should happen if the Counsellors of State disagree. He said that is because the question is “absurd”, since the counsellors have no decision-making power.

Another distinguished constitutional scholar, Professor Rodney Brazier, took a different view in his 2005 article in the Cambridge Law Journal. He said that, if the King were seriously indisposed and could not express a view, counsellors may have to take decisions to deal with urgent matters—for example, the sudden death of the Prime Minister. Can the Minister illuminate us, or at least give some guidance, on whether the Counsellors of State are merely instruments of the King’s will or have an independent decision-making function where necessary?

I shall raise my fourth point tentatively because of its sensitivity. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already referred to it. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, made a football analogy, saying that it is valuable to have two further players on the bench. I would respectfully suggest that it is a curious feature of the Bill to retain two people on the team sheet who will not play any part in the match. Of course, I understand why that is.

My final point is to express hope that the Government may think it time to conduct a general review of the provisions of the 1937 Act, as amended, to see whether they are appropriate for the modern world or can be improved. This little Bill does not provide an opportunity to resolve these questions but I hope the Government will consider them.

University of Bristol: Jewish Students

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I first pay tribute to my noble friend’s work on the IHRA definition and getting a number of bodies, including Her Majesty’s Government, to sign up to it. He is right that adoption of that working definition is only a first step. While the Government think it is vital, it is not enough on its own. That is why we continue to work with the sector to make sure that it is doing everything it can to stamp out anti-Semitism.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I draw attention to my registered interests and very much welcome the Minister’s comments. Has he noted that Professor Miller has suggested that by joining a university Jewish society, students are thereby associating themselves with racism and Islamophobia? Will the Minister note that many students join Jewish societies because they wish to attend religious services or go to parties? They may simply wish to have a nourishing and regular bowl of chicken soup.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord. That suggestion is at the heart of this issue because it implies that Professor Miller can understand the motivations or the political views of Jewish students at the University of Bristol who join a Jewish society. We think that is wrong and very ill-founded, and that is what causes us such concern in this case.

Business of the House

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

That is what it says, but why should we accept that? It is supposed to be a negotiation. If we wanted an alternative arrangement, I should have thought that the position should be us saying what that alternative is. I have heard, “We don’t know what the UK wants”, again and again. A specific amendment to the agreement might well be subject to further consideration.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the House of Commons sent us a Bill that its Members consider urgent. We should get on and consider its merits and demerits. Forty-nine noble Lords have put their names down for Second Reading, including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. There will be ample time during Second Reading for all these points to be explored. I suggest that we get on and do it.

[Lord True]

My Lords, when the great US Constitution was written, there is a story of, I believe, Thomas Jefferson—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

That the Question be now put.

[The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar) (CB)]

My Lords, I am instructed by the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered a most exceptional procedure, and that the House must not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if the Member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Motion be put without debate.

[Lord Pannick]

I wish to move the Motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Question now is that the Question be now put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

The reason we do this is that the other place does not do a very good job of scrutinising legislation. There are a lot of reasons for that. Compared with the normal proceedings of your Lordships’ House, the proceedings in the other place are much more party political. Anybody who reads Hansard can see that. In particular, since 1997, when Mr Blair introduced programme Motions, the amount of time dedicated to legislation has been severely truncated at all stages of Bills going through the other place. They often arrive in your Lordships’ House with very little scrutiny, and with some clauses and parts of Bills not scrutinised at all.

We have an important job to do. When my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin was moving one of his Motions yesterday in the other place, he freely admitted that the Bill—which we will move on to at some stage—needed to be “tightened” and that that would be done by the House of Lords. So the other place now expects this House to do the job of perfecting legislation. That has been the case for some considerable time, but we have to have procedures to do it.

Standing Order 46 sets out the bare bones of how we approach legislation. It states:

“No Bill shall be read twice the same day; no Committee of the Whole House shall proceed on any Bill the same day as the Bill has been read the Second time; no report shall be received from any Committee of the Whole House the same day such Committee goes through the Bill, when any amendments are made to such Bill; and no Bill shall be read the Third time the same day that the Bill is reported from the Committee, or the order of commitment is discharged”.


Those arrangements—

[Lord Pannick]

Does the noble Baroness accept that, forceful though her points no doubt are, we have now been discussing the same points for three hours and 46 minutes, in the context of a Bill that has been sent to us by the House of Commons on an urgent basis? Does she not accept that it really is time to move on? She has put her name down for Second Reading. All these points could be made in her Second Reading speech.

[Baroness Noakes]

I fully hear what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says, but I have a right to be heard on the Motion that I have put on the Order Paper. A considerable amount of the time has been taken up by noble Lords moving closure Motions, which involves two Divisions every time.