European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Austin, on his powerful maiden speech and thank him for his heroic efforts in fighting anti-Semitism.

Almost all this debate has focused on the contents of the agreement, which this House cannot amend. I will focus briefly on how the Bill implements the agreement into our law, a matter on which some of us would have wished to move amendments.

Like my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I am particularly concerned about Clause 29, which makes all existing domestic law subject to the contents of this agreement, unless equivalent provisions have been enacted. I understand of course why this needs to be done as a matter of urgency before 11 pm tomorrow, but as a permanent provision on our statute book it is not acceptable. Clause 29 means that in all the areas covered by the agreement, from agriculture to transport, the legal clarity and certainty which our statute book aims to achieve, and usually does, is now subject to the terms of the agreement—terms which are in so many places deliberately vague in order to secure consensus between this country and the EU.

Because of the legal uncertainty that Clause 29 will inevitably cause, it is a great deal for lawyers—I declare my interest—but not for anyone else. Clause 29 should therefore have a shelf life of no more than six months. Clauses 31 and those following already confer broad powers on Ministers—I would say excessively broad—to make regulations to ensure the consistency of our laws with the agreement. Ministers should have a duty to do that and to sort the statute book out by 1 July next year, on which date Clause 29 should cease to apply.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, said, in the 21st report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, produced at unconstitutional speed yesterday, we give notice that we will be reporting on this and other constitutional concerns about this Bill early in the new year. We must pass this Bill today, but post-legislative scrutiny in January is essential.

Ministers: Training

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said on a personal basis.

The noble Lord is addressing an extraordinarily important point, which we all share; obviously I am not here to answer for Parliament, but we are all aware of the facilities that this House makes available. I hope all Members of this House will avail themselves of those. The Ministerial Code is absolutely clear:

“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.”


That clear message is given to new Ministers right at the outset—I can testify to that from this week—but I accept the spirit of what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, if bullying and harassment will not be tolerated, any Minister guilty of such conduct should no longer remain in post?

[Lord True]

The noble Lord is wise and knows very well that whether people remain in office is a matter not for me or him but for the Prime Minister. In fact, this Prime Minister updated the advice around the code last August, to include greater clarity on how investigations into alleged breaches will take place. It made it very clear that if there is an allegation of a breach, the Prime Minister will consult the Cabinet Secretary. If he feels that it warrants further investigation, he may ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case and refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Sir Alex Allan.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 8th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. The House should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for pursuing the subject, because these by-elections are doing severe damage to the reputation of this House. We do important work here—scrutinising legislation and in committees—and by and large we do that work very well. However, the credibility of this House is undermined by the farce, and it is a farce, that membership can be won in a by-election in which a handful of electors vote for candidates whose eligibility depends on the accident of birth. The by-elections are quite simply an embarrassment to this House.

We should also bear in mind a point that has not yet been mentioned in this debate. Hereditary peerages, with very limited exceptions, can descend only through the male line. Only one of the hereditary Peers in this House is a woman: my esteemed colleague on the Cross Benches, the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Her title is an exception to the no-women rule, as most Scottish peerages can pass to a daughter if there are no sons. The noble Countess has been one of the 92 since 1999 but no woman has been elected in a by-election since 1999, and there is only one woman on the register of nearly 200 hereditary Peers who have put themselves forward to be considered at future by-elections. I simply cannot understand how it can be consistent with basic principles of equality for this House to maintain by-elections when eligibility as a candidate is effectively excluded for women. This is relevant to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, as to whether by-elections are a less satisfactory means of becoming a Member of this House than appointment by the Prime Minister. Yes, by-elections are less satisfactory for many reasons, but one of them is that the appointment procedure does not effectively exclude women.

The main argument that appears to be advanced in opposition to the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is a historical one. The deal was done in 1999. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard: there is no other area of law and practice where Parliament feels itself bound by what its predecessor did. Why should the approach adopted by Parliament a generation ago bind this one? This House in 2017 is no more bound by what was decided in 1999 on hereditary Peers than it is by decisions taken in 1999 on the economy or foreign policy.

The only other argument that has been advanced this morning is that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who says that hereditary Peers have individually been valuable Members of this House. No doubt they have, but there will be nothing to prevent the leaders of the political parties or indeed the House of Lords Appointments Commission putting forward the names of hereditary Peers for membership of this House if their individual qualities make that appropriate.

The Bill raises a clear issue of principle on which the House will need to take a view. I echo the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that noble Lords who do not support the Bill will resist any temptation to table a series of amendments that will unnecessarily take up time and may prevent the Bill making progress. Let us instead have a full debate in Committee on the only issue raised by the Bill: should these by-elections be retained or abolished?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, as an elected hereditary Peer who voted for the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999, I feel bound to oppose this Bill for the same reasons as put forward by my noble friend Lord Elton and others. I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but regret that he insists on bringing this matter up again at this time. I repeat what I said when we last debated this matter only last December—namely, I do not believe that the public view the presence in this place of 92 Peers by succession as any more offensive than the presence of around 700 Peers who sit here by appointment. Furthermore, I do not think it is correct to argue that the hereditaries who sit in your Lordships’ House have any less legitimacy than the life Peers. It is now very competitive to enter this House if you happen to be a hereditary Peer. I think the last by-election on the Deputy Speakers’ list worked very well. Noble Lords were able to interview the candidates at a hustings before casting their votes. They certainly do not get the chance to do so in the case of Peers who are appointed to this House.

Furthermore, the hereditaries who sit in your Lordships’ House are generally younger than life Peers, at least when they take their seats. They are more geographically representative and I believe that their link with history and tradition adds to their legitimacy. It is a good thing that prime ministerial patronage and nomination by party leaders are not the only way by which people may become Members of your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Pannick]

Following those arguments, does the noble Viscount think that we should have more hereditary Peers?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech states:

“Proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights”.

I declare an interest as a practising barrister who sometimes appeared against the Minister in his former life. The Minister said that we would not have to wait much longer to hear the details of the proposals. We certainly did not hear any of the details this afternoon.

We are accustomed in this House to mature reflection before a conclusion is reached on matters of policy. However, the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war and the assessment of the case for another runway at Heathrow Airport are each the impetuous rush to judgment of men and women in an unseemly hurry compared with the protracted and painful saga of the Conservative Party’s deliberations on human rights.

In February 2009, the Guardian newspaper reported that David Cameron, then leader of the Opposition, promised to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The Guardian report of seven and a quarter years ago concluded:

“The Conservatives have yet to spell out in detail what exactly would be covered by their British bill of rights”.

Nothing has changed. Since 2009, human rights law has survived Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and has survived, just about, the Lord Chancellorship of Mr Chris Grayling, the man noble Lords may remember told the Conservative Party conference in September 2014 that he “supports real human rights”, and so opposes,

“the terrible things done in countries like North Korea”.

That sets the bar rather low for most people’s comfort. Human rights law will even survive Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, joining the Labour Party, whose recent record on human rights has been less than glorious.

Conservative Ministers have given innumerable speeches on a British Bill of Rights, but as to substance there has been none. Of course, there was a coalition Government for five years, but if the Conservatives were prevented from implementing a policy, that is no excuse for their inability to articulate a policy.

There is, of course, a very good reason for their repeated failures to come forward with concrete proposals on human rights. It is very easy to express political platitudes on this subject and to pander to popular prejudice. It is much more difficult to come forward with coherent proposals which would improve the current state of the law. What we do know is that the Lord Chancellor, Mr Gove, told the House of Commons last month that the Government’s position is that we should remain within the European Convention on Human Rights. On 26 April, the Attorney-General, Mr Jeremy Wright, told the other place that,

“we have no objections to the text of the convention; it is indeed a fine document”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/16; col. 1289.]

The Minister repeated that today, not in those words but in substance. What the Minister told us—and it is all he told us about the substance of these proposals—is that the concern is not the contents of the convention but the rulings of the European court. But how will a British Bill of Rights assist on that, when being a party to the convention means an obligation to implement its terms, as interpreted in the judgments of the Strasbourg court?

There is a problem with the protection of human rights in this country: it is the willingness of politicians and the press to use human rights as a political football. However, I must say that I find newspaper editors, as clients, as keen as anybody else on the protection offered by human rights in relation to unfair or arbitrary government decisions. I have a proposal: instead of denigrating and undermining human rights law because of objections to a tiny minority of Strasbourg court judgments, this Government should focus on educating children and informing adults of the value of the Human Rights Act in contributing to our civilised society. If and when the Government do bring forward concrete proposals, this House will need to scrutinise them most carefully.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

I believe strongly that we should not need to wait 20 years for the review to be implemented, and I hope the Minister will assure me that that is not the mindset of those who will be asked to undertake it. I hope they will undertake it constructively and positively, with a genuine desire to advance the agenda of electronic balloting.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has just said. The Minister has repeated today that the Government are not opposed to electronic balloting in principle; they are concerned about the technicalities. I therefore hope that the Minister can tell the House that, if the independent review produces a positive response on the technicalities and the detail, the Government will be eager to implement the findings.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, as I do Mr Nick Boles for the very constructive part he played in another place. I just ask my noble friend to say something about the timescale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I think we have to reflect, briefly, upon what has happened. We had a Motion, carried by a large majority, that the Select Committee should be established. I did not support it. I explained during the debate that I felt that the Bill was seriously impaired and that there was much unfairness in it, but I questioned whether a committee could, in the very short timescale that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has referred to today, produce a really good, definitive report. Thanks to the hard work of colleagues from all parts of the House and expert chairmanship, to which they all testified, by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the deadline was met and a report was produced. It was signed up to by all the members of the committee—although, in the final, conclusive paragraph, there was, it was explained, a divergence of opinion.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, decided to encapsulate that recommendation in the amendment which he moved on Report in your Lordships’ House. He moved the amendment with great skill and was supported by Members from other political parties as well as Members on the Cross Benches. My noble friend Lord Balfe and I voted enthusiastically for him. The names of a number of leading members of the Conservative Party will not be found in the Division list—I went through it carefully—because they felt that they could not oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It was carried by a large majority. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, explained that when he came to the negotiations at the beginning of last week, what was on offer not only did not meet his amendment but did not even meet the amendment to which my Conservative friends had signed up—in paragraph B, I think it was—so further negotiations were held.

What happened was very simply this. The parliamentary Session is coming to an end. The State Opening of Parliament has already been designated for 18 May—a fortnight tomorrow. So what was to happen? My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and Mr Boles in another place decided that half a loaf was indeed better than no bread: that it would be far better to have a Bill that had widespread support—albeit that some of it is reluctant support. I myself do not think that this is the greatest Bill that the Government have placed before this House. Nevertheless, it is now, as far as one-nation Conservatives are concerned, a fairer, more decent and more equitable Bill, and one that has within it some recognition of the underlying dichotomy of party funding, because the Bill in its original state—and I used the words “unfairness” and “choice” many times in contributing to earlier debates—whether by accident or design, was penalising one of the great parties of state and not the others.

I believe that it is important that the second recommendation in the manifesto, which has already been alluded to two or three times in this debate, should be followed up. I hope that there will be something in the Queen’s Speech about it, because I do not like the way in which party politics is funded in this country—and I know that that view is widely shared in all parts of your Lordships’ House and in all parts of the country. But what we now have is a Bill that can go on to the statute book and which honours a number of the important pledges in last year’s manifesto. I accept that a manifesto Bill is different from another sort of Bill. Therefore, we have something in which the Government can take a degree of quiet satisfaction—and those of us who were concerned about the underlying unfairness of the original Bill can also feel that it has been improved.

I was only too glad to put my name—alongside that of my noble friend Lord Balfe—to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, also signed it. Your Lordships’ House gave that a very large majority, as I said. So the Government’s choice was a very simple one: should they go along with the will of your Lordships’ House as expressed in the Division Lobbies or should they invite further defeat, which could have jeopardised every particular of the Bill?

I think that the Government have made a wise, moderate and sensible decision. I pay unreserved tribute to the unfailing courtesy and diligence of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and to Mr Boles in another place. I hope that we can now move on. Last week, when we had the Third Reading, I said I hoped that the spirit of euphoria was not premature. I hope that it will not prove to have been premature and that we can now accept what is before us and get something on the statute book that is much more acceptable to those who have genuine concerns.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, we in this House often complain that the other place has ignored our views. It is unusual, and perhaps regrettable, that some noble Lords complained today that the other place listened attentively to the views of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to the vote in this House, which was supported all around the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, including on the government Benches. I do not know whether there was a deal, but whether or not there was, an act of political wisdom has occurred and we should welcome it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend not just for tabling this Motion, which I very much support, but for the way in which she has patiently conducted proceedings on the Bill and dealt with sometimes unhelpful contributions from people such as myself.

My concerns about the Bill were in relation to check-off and the proposals to change to an opting-in arrangement, which were coupled with an announcement by the Chancellor to cut Short money. It seemed to me that the Government were abusing their power in order to damage the funding of the Official Opposition. That is why I was opposed to these particular provisions of the Bill. I had a difficulty because there was a manifesto commitment in respect of the opt-in, opt-out proposals. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others have pointed out, that manifesto commitment was to look at the question of opting in and opting out in the context of overall party funding. I think it is wrong for a Government to use their power to dis their opponents or in a way which leaves open to question whether or not they are acting in the interests of the country as a whole or in the interests of a party. For years and years, I have made speeches attacking the Labour Party and suggesting that its dependence on trade union funds meant that policy could potentially be up for sale. Having listened patiently to the very persuasive arguments put forward by my noble friend to indicate why a change of policy should not be agreed, it was with some dismay that I heard suddenly—I believe I am not the only person who heard suddenly; I think some Front Bench people heard suddenly—that the Government’s position had changed completely.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on bringing forward this amendment. However, will the Minister accept that under the new provision it would be open to the employer not to enforce the relevant payments for whatever reason if they decide not to do so in the future in any particular circumstance?

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I add my voice to those congratulating both Ministers on the way in which they have handled the Bill, perhaps especially the last part, which could have been quite a contentious area. It has been approached in a sensible way, and invitations might flow to my noble friend Lord Balfe and others. I certainly second his last point that it would be in trade unions’ interest—as I have always believed—to be prepared and proud to invite members of all parties to their conferences. It would be in the interest of the country for all parties to have a progressive and constructive relationship with the trade union movement and British industry.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, in supporting this amendment I will repeat, very briefly, a point that I made in Committee. I might not have done this if the Minister had dealt with the matter in her reply. But, tantalisingly, just as she said:

“Perhaps this is the point at which I should respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown”,—[Official Report, 8/2/16; col. 2026.]

the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, interrupted—perhaps I mean intervened—to raise a different question and the Minister never came back to it.

At all events, the point was simply this: while I support the turnout requirements in these clauses, it should be noted that certain bizarre consequences could, at least theoretically, follow from these provisions. Assuming a bargaining unit of 1,000 union members—the illustration used in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill—if 499 members voted in favour of industrial action and none against, a strike would be unlawful. However, if 499 voted in favour and one against, because at least 50% of those eligible would have voted, a strike would be permissible—so, too, of course if 499 voted in favour and 498 against.

Doubtless, such possible anomalies as these are inevitable in any scheme which combines, as this one does, a minimum turnout requirement with the principle of a simple majority decision. But my point is that surely this underlines the imperative need to ensure that the best and most effective way is found of achieving a maximum turnout of those eligible to vote. This amendment will surely facilitate the search for that better way, and plainly nothing can be lost by it. It prejudges nothing: if electronic balloting were to prove ineffective or insecure in addition to postal voting, it simply would not be adopted. But we should at least let such an independent review be held.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and for one further reason, which I mentioned in Committee: promoting electronic voting will make it much less likely that any legal challenge to the new thresholds would succeed if such a challenge were brought in Strasbourg. It is very simple: the less balanced the provisions in the Bill, the greater the danger that the Government will not secure their objectives, and I support their objectives in relation to the ballot thresholds. The Minister mentioned a few moments ago that the Bill is concerned to strike a fair balance. So is this amendment.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I will raise one or two drawbacks to the course of action outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and others. I have no objection whatever to the cause of e-balloting in principle. But, as I understand it, if the Government are satisfied that it represents a secure, stable and hacking-free way forward, the power to make regulations on e-balloting already exists. For the same reason that we do not allow electronic balloting in general and other elections, the same concerns should exist for trade union ballots as well. It involves considerable challenges, and we all know about the problems on the internet of hacking, stealing ballots, intimidation et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has attempted to answer some of those problems, but they exist and we should bear them in mind.

There have been allegations of ballot rigging in trade union elections before. There were allegations of rigging in elections to the national executive of the Transport and General Workers’ Union a few years ago. For the public to have faith in the process, it is important that the integrity of the process is recognised and that people believe that, when a ballot takes place, it is fair to all concerned. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brennan (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons, which I shall shortly state. First, there is a genuine and important public interest in the existing statutory system. Two years ago, this House enacted this system. It did so as the result of a government amendment, which was not opposed but agreed unanimously. The Minister speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that,

“the Government believe that it is in the long-term interest not only of bank customers but of the City of London that the highest possible standards are followed”.

He said that the system he was introducing,

“ensures that individuals are held to account when things go wrong”.—[Official Report, 15/10/13; col. 405.]

That is the genuine public interest that the present system protects.

Secondly, the reversal of the burden of proof is a well-recognised feature of our legal framework. It is subject to safeguards and appropriate standards, but it exists and has done for a long time. For example, the Health and Safety at Work Act covers employers large and small—a point was made about the size of credit unions—across the whole country. They have a duty to protect their workers. In fulfilling that duty they are required to show that they did all that was reasonably practicable to satisfy that duty. It is a statute that can send people, after a court hearing, to prison. That is for a crime punishable by jail; this is not that—this deals with misconduct and disciplinary proceedings. The people involved should know the system they are trying to justify and explain. The regulator is entitled to be able to run a sensible regime which does not subject his organisation and his staff to undue pressure. That is what the public want. I would ask the House this: are we seriously suggesting that that which we demand of employers for our citizens is too much to ask of bankers; namely, to protect their customers?

I turn to the third reason. Why make this change? Why have the Government, a different Government but with the same Treasury officials, committed a complete volte-face within two years and without any plausible justification, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out? I suggest that, there being no plausible reason, the first thoughts of the House were the right ones and are what the public expect. We should do our best, on this kind of embarrassing occasion for the Treasury and the Government, to protect them from this intellectual disarray and to make sure that the House itself does not fall into the legislative embarrassment of telling the nation one year, “This is how we will protect you”, and two years later saying exactly the opposite. For these three reasons, this amendment should be carried.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I think we all agree that to impose a reverse burden of proof on a person to establish their innocence of a disciplinary offence requires a strong justification. It is required not only by elementary fairness; it is also required by law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, indicated. This is a criminal matter for Article 6 purposes because a disciplinary offence is regarded, by our courts and by Strasbourg, as a criminal matter if sanctions are imposed. So the question is this: what is the justification?

I have listened carefully to the debate to try to understand the justification being put forward, and it appears to amount to this. It will be difficult to prove a failure to comply with the new duty to take reasonable steps. That is the concern, but I do not understand it. The regulator has considerable investigative powers which enable it to obtain all the relevant evidence on whether a senior manager has complied with the new duty to take reasonable steps. If there is no document trail, which is the concern mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in his contribution, the regulator will rely precisely on that in establishing a failure to take reasonable steps. The banker, even if he has the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, acting for him, will be found guilty of the disciplinary offence of failing to take reasonable steps, and rightly so. That is the appropriate way to change a culture—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, rightly referred. You change a culture by ensuring that the regulator brings a proper disciplinary charge; you do not change a culture by introducing an unfair regime.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that the battle between the FCA and the bankers is unequal. This is a problem across the legal field in relation to prosecution authorities, but the answer is to ensure that the FCA has adequate resources; the answer is not to introduce an unfair regime. I do not think that the case for a reverse burden has come close to being made out. The strong justification has simply not been established.

Succession to Peerages Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on bringing this Bill before the House and on doing so in such economical terms.

No one could suggest that a Bill on this subject is premature. The Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 removed sex discrimination in relation to the exercise of public functions, or the holding of any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or carrying on any civil profession or vocation. Yet here we are, nearly 100 years later, debating a Bill that will remove some of the inequality—although, as the noble Lord said, only some of it—in relation to succession to peerages. This is a quite remarkable situation.

Women were given the same voting rights as men in 1925. The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 addressed sex discrimination in employment, education and in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Even the Church of England, not known for being in the advance of social progress, has now provided for women bishops, and Parliament has provided recently that succession to the Crown no longer depends at all on a person’s gender—see Section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013—and rightly so. The only area of public life that I am aware of that retains institutional discrimination against women is the hereditary peerage.

I can think of only one argument in favour of such prejudice: that the hereditary peerage is so absurd and anachronistic an institution—why on earth should a person’s status depend on that of his or her father—that we cannot expect to apply basic principles of fairness in that context. But that will not do. The peerage is not a private club. Indeed, 92 hereditary Peers, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is a distinguished example, sit in this House helping to make the laws of the land. The peerage cannot claim to be exempt from the basic principles of fairness that govern the rest of our society.

In this context, as in others, discrimination against women is simply objectionable. It is entirely without justification and we have tolerated it in relation to the peerage for far too long. I therefore welcome the Bill because it puts this issue on the parliamentary agenda.

But the Bill, as drafted, is patently inadequate. It will need substantial amendment in Committee. Clause 2(3) would allow a woman to succeed to a title if she has no male siblings. If she has younger male siblings, they will have precedence over her. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in a quite remarkable statement that his Bill aims to bring succession to the peerage into the 21st century—really? He said that his proposal is modest, but it will perpetuate sex discrimination and for that reason it needs to be amended.

If the oldest child of the monarch now succeeds to the Throne, whether they are male or female, how can it possibly be defensible to retain a position that the oldest male child of a Peer will succeed to the title? If this Bill were to be enacted, then in the magnificent creation of the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, “Downton Abbey”, as I understand it the Earl of Grantham would now be succeeded by his eldest daughter, but only because he had no sons. However, a younger son would retain precedence over an older daughter. That is quite indefensible.

In his play, “A Woman of No Importance”, Oscar Wilde wrote:

“You should study the Peerage, Gerald … it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done”.

It is time that we brought the peerage into the real world. The peerage has hitherto treated women as being of no importance. This Bill, which is a modest improvement, would treat women as being of very limited importance. The peerage needs to do better than that. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on introducing the Bill and I look forward to noble Lords improving it in Committee.

Palestine: Recognition

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, there is of course another side to this debate. The United Kingdom is in good company in not recognising a state of Palestine. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark and many other European nations have not yet recognised a state of Palestine—and for good reason. Sympathetic though we all are to the sufferings of the unfortunate Palestinian people, recognising a state of Palestine at this time would hinder rather than promote a peace settlement. It would hinder a peace settlement because what is needed on both sides is to focus attention on the painful compromises that have to be made in bilateral negotiations. Yes; painful compromises are required from the Israeli side, and I know how difficult they will find it—I have an Israeli wife.

On the Palestinian side, which of course we are debating today, instead of the distraction of grandstanding international gestures, Palestinians need unequivocally to accept that the State of Israel is here to stay. They must give up the notion of a right to live in Haifa or Be’er Sheva. They need to throw away the schoolbooks that demonise Jews and deny that the Holocaust occurred, and unequivocally to condemn the attacks from Gaza and the suicide bombers, who are responsible for the blighting of the lives of other Palestinians, which we have heard about today.

Perhaps most of all, they need to recognise that Israel, for all its faults—and which society does not have faults?—has much to teach Palestinians, if only they would listen, about how a society born out of tragedy can promote free speech, democracy, the rule of law, scientific and literary achievements and, yes, prosperity for its people, with standards achieved in very few other places in the world, and of course none in the Middle East, all in the 66 years since its creation—a quite astonishing achievement in the most difficult of circumstances, surrounded by people who wish to destroy you.

Last week, a Palestinian man from the West Bank stabbed 10 people in an unprovoked attack on a bus in Tel Aviv. The New York Times reported that the assailant told police he was hoping to reach paradise—I assume he had not intended Tel Aviv to be his final destination. The London Times reported the response from Hamas. It was, it said, a “heroic and daring operation”. I will tell the House what would truly be heroic: for the Palestinian leadership to abandon gesture politics in the United Nations and take the hard and painful decisions that are necessary to secure peace in the only place it can be achieved—at the negotiating table.