Saudi Arabia: Executions

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s preference for private representations in this matter. Would she not agree that megaphone diplomacy is almost always less effective in the long run and is therefore not to be supported? Will she also bear in mind the importance of our commercial relations with Saudi Arabia, not least in the defence field?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, megaphone diplomacy can indeed be counterproductive. One must consider its use in each and every country. Our trade relationship with Saudi Arabia is important from the point of view of security but also complements our work on human rights. Our work on human rights is never in any way diminished by our trade relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Trefgarne and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will hesitate for a moment or two so that colleagues can leave the Chamber. We will then take his Amendment 1.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, I have never quite understood, and do not now understand, why it is thought so necessary that this Bill should be driven through with such speed. The plain fact is that the arrangements it seeks to change—I do not disagree with all of them—have been in place in some cases for many hundreds of years. Why we need not only to drive the Bill through swiftly but also to backdate one of its provisions is not immediately obvious to me. I therefore propose that, at the end of the first clause, we should provide that it should come into effect in, say, 50 years’ time, which is a very short time in relation to how long these arrangements have been in place. That would be an appropriate change to the Bill and I beg to move.