Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as this will be my last opportunity to address your Lordships’ House on this Bill, I crave your indulgence for a couple of minutes. There are something like 92,000 care leavers in the 18 to 25 age bracket at any one time. While it is hard to be precise about how much this Bill would cost, the best estimate is that it would probably add something like £25 million a year to the total costs on the Government. That would enable a young care leaver who is in receipt of universal credit to get an extra £80 a month, which is 25% more than they currently get. It would be life-changing for them. It would make, I would argue, very little difference to the state of the nation’s finances.
Notwithstanding that, I understand that this is not the way that Governments like bills to be added to the Treasury and I fully anticipate that the noble Baroness, my good friend on the Front Bench, will say that in a moment or two. But I urge that, if there is any possibility of this being discussed in the other place, that be permitted, because I have learned so much about care leavers in the course of leading this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I have begun to realise how being in care adds a further adverse childhood experience to young people who have probably, because they have been in care, already had other adverse childhood experiences at an earlier stage. Their lot and their life chances are typically poorer. We know that some even make it into your Lordships’ House, and that is fantastic, but many suffer disadvantage well into adult life.
I am very grateful for the support from around the House at the earlier stages of the Bill and I thank all noble Lords who participated in that process. I am very grateful to the charities, particularly Become and Barnardo’s, which work very extensively with care leavers and young people in care. I am even more grateful to the young care leavers who came to Parliament for Second Reading and who met me in advance of that and shared with me some of the challenges they faced in making the transition from the state being their corporate parent to often being told that they now have to live entirely independently at the age of 18. I am also grateful to Sarah and Will in the parliamentary office of the Church of England here in Westminster, and to my own staff, Abi, Anne and Lucie, in my diocese in Manchester. With that, I think I have probably addressed noble Lords for long enough on this matter.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House. As we said at Second Reading, we support the sentiments behind the Bill, which has raised awareness of care leavers and the struggles they face. We all know how vulnerable young people who leave care can be and the challenges of transitioning into adulthood without the support that many others receive.
As noble Lords will be aware, care leavers who are over the age of 18 are entitled to claim universal credit on the same basis as over 25 year-olds, but at a lower rate. Standardising the allowance payable is a noble cause that I know, and we have heard, the right reverend Prelate cares very deeply about, and he is to be commended for his tenacity and dedication to the cause. But finally, to restate our position on the Bill, we believe that a number of alternative provisions already exist, such as the setting up home allowance. Extending the monetary support to care leavers, as this Bill suggests, has fiscal implications, as has been highlighted. It will be up to His Majesty’s Government to decide whether the provisions of the Bill are financially workable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and I commend him for his work on this Bill and for giving the whole House an opportunity to understand more about the experiences of care leavers and those in the care system now. I add my thanks to charities such as Barnardo’s and Become. I had the opportunity to speak with care-experienced young people at events there and I learned a lot from that, as I did from discussions with the right reverend Prelate at earlier stages of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate is quite right that adverse childhood experiences are at the heart of this. We recognise that many care leavers, because of the experiences they have had, are more likely to be out of education, employment or training, and more likely to experience financial difficulty, health problems or homelessness. Although, as the right reverend Prelate rightly predicted, I am not in a position to support his Bill today, I want to say that the Government are determined to make sure that we offer the right support to care leavers. We already offer a range of safeguards and specialist services to support them. Care leavers under 25 can claim the local housing allowance rate of housing benefit; they can get specialist support with transitioning into adult claims; they can get extra help in returning to education if they have missed out on that; and they can get all kinds of support to help them develop and get into jobs. However, there is much more to do and the right reverend Prelate is right to challenge us.
The Government are taking steps to improve support for care leavers and young people more widely. When the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill comes forward, we will be looking to see how we can support care leavers to find accommodation and access local services. Through our youth guarantee, we will help all 18 to 21 year-olds get access to quality training or apprenticeships or find work. But that is all for another day. Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate and those who have brought these issues before the House, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed and I look forward to continuing to work on these issues as time goes on.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I remind the House that the advisory speaking time for Back-Benchers on the next Bill is three minutes. That means that, when you get to two minutes, you start making your closing remarks and, at three minutes, the time is up.
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Lord Norton of Louth
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I wish to explain the context of this Bill, detail its principal provisions and, most importantly, stress what it is designed to achieve. Its introduction is premised on a dual need: to strengthen the House in what it does and in how it is seen by those outside.
Many of those taking part in this debate are aware that this is a revised version of the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. It has been amended in the light of what was said in that debate. However, its genesis goes back much further. Almost 20 years ago, I penned the first draft of what became the House of Lords Bill, better known as the Steel Bill. It was introduced into this House by Lord Steel of Aikwood on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, a body I founded with my noble friend the late Lord Cormack.
The Bill had four main provisions, which in effect constituted the manifesto of the campaign. It put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis; it ended the by-elections for hereditary Peers; it allowed Peers to retire; and it provided for Peers who commit serious criminal offences to be expelled from membership of the House. It was variously debated, twice in 2007, and enjoyed wide support, but, because of opposition from a small minority of Peers, we were not able to make progress as it stood. We were, though, able to get two of its provisions enacted—enabling Peers to retire and removing those who commit serious offences—through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place by Dan Byles and facilitated it in its passage by the Government. We now also have the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill going through your Lordships’ House. That means that only one provision of the Steel Bill is, in effect, unfulfilled: putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, on a statutory basis. For me, this Bill constitutes unfinished business.
This Bill has four main provisions. First, it puts HOLAC on a statutory basis. The case for doing so has always been strong, but is made even more so by the hereditary Peers Bill. Enactment of that Bill will mean there is no route to becoming a Peer independent of prime ministerial patronage. My contention is that this Bill has to be conjoined with the hereditary Peers Bill to ensure that the Prime Minister does not enjoy exclusive, unrestrained power to create Members of this House. Those who have opposed the hereditary Peers Bill for giving too much power of patronage to the Prime Minister need to explain, if they do not support this Bill, what they would do to constrain that power.
Putting HOLAC on a statutory basis would protect its independence. It can be argued that no Prime Minister would think of getting rid of HOLAC, but the point is that they could. It could have been argued that no Prime Minister would ignore a recommendation of HOLAC on the appointment of Peers, but they could—and, as we know, have done. The point is not just one of quality control: fundamental to my argument is that it is core to public trust in appointments to this House. In terms of what the public want from HOLAC and the appointments process, my Bill is a modest one and, as we have seen with the Steel and Grocott Bills, if you do not make modest changes now, the likelihood is that you will eventually end up with more radical surgery.
There are two changes from the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. The first is made in response to what was said in debate on the Bill, where concerns were raised that putting the appointments process in statute opened up the prospect of judicial review. I have therefore introduced an ouster clause. This is exceptional but, as with the ouster clause in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act introduced by the Conservative Government in the last Parliament, justified in the context of the measure. It is not a qualified provision of the sort referred to by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne in Monday’s debate. The clause meets the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in the earlier debate; he cannot be here today, but he has authorised me to say that the inclusion of the clause fully meets his concerns and that the Bill now has his full support.
The second change derives from public expectations. The Bill provides that, if HOLAC recommends against a name being put forward to the monarch, the Prime Minister cannot put forward that name for two years. It is not a bar. The name could be resubmitted. However, it forces the Prime Minister to reconsider someone who is not judged suitable at the time.
Secondly, the Bill enshrines the core principles widely endorsed by Members on the size and composition of the House: that is, that it should be no larger than the House of Commons, that no one party should enjoy an absolute majority and that at least one-fifth of the House should comprise Cross-Bench Peers. These provisions enable the House to do what it does well. We are too large and we recognise that we need to reduce our numbers, but size is a second-order issue relative to the need to be seen to be effective in fulfilling our core functions, not least legislative scrutiny. Because no party in government enjoys an absolute majority, it works to persuade the House to accept the provisions of a Bill. In the Commons, there is a culture of assertion; in this House, there is a culture of justification. Ministers need to justify what they bring forward. Ensuring that a significant proportion of the House is independent of party contributes to the independence of the House and provides a route for people who have served in public office and have no party-political affiliation to join it. These in effect constitute goals for the Prime Minister. They provide a core organising framework.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that those nominated for membership must meet the criteria of “conspicuous merit” and demonstrate
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House”.
In the light of the Delegated Powers Committee report, I am content to confine it to those provisions. The committee has drawn attention to some subsections of Clause 7—even though the clause is the same as in the 2022 Bill, to which the committee raised no objections.
When the Bill was debated in 2022, some Members thought the criterion of “conspicuous merit” was too broad; others, I know, think that it encapsulates what we need and what the public expect. If we are to do our job effectively—and, in effect, justify our existence—we need to maintain a membership characterised by experience and expertise. We also need to be seen to be bringing in Members who can make a distinctive contribution. In my view, generating guidance as to what constitutes “conspicuous merit” is not the most onerous of tasks as it essentially requires those nominated to show what they have contributed by way of experience or professional achievement. The experience may not be earth-shattering but may, by its nature, be distinctive. I am not opposed to generating a different wording; the key point is establishing a clear threshold of merit.
Fourthly, there is a need for transparency, requiring those party leaders putting forward names for peerages to inform HOLAC of the criteria and process employed for making the nomination. Injecting the fresh air of transparency is a further means of enhancing public trust in the process. When we debated the Bill last time, the then Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, expressed doubts about this provision. Yet the Government have, in effect, conceded much of the principle by publishing citations for nominations. I commend them on that. This Bill pushes a little further in a way that serves to tackle public cynicism.
That brings me to the purpose of the Bill, which is the core reason for this debate. It is to establish the need to change the process by which people are nominated for peerages. It is necessary—not desirable but necessary —for the House to maintain its claim to legitimacy, both in how Members arrive and in the work they do. This House contributes to good law because of a unique combination of membership and procedures that distinguish it from the other place. It fulfils functions that the House of Commons may not have the time or the political will to fulfil. It is recognised as carrying out detailed scrutiny of legislation that enhances the quality of law in this country. However, the public derive their view of this House not from what it does but from how Members are selected and how some behave.
Enacting this Bill will enhance the work of the House through bringing in Members qualified to carry out its functions, and tackle the distrust that now engulfs the nominations process. As I said, the provisions are modest relative to what the public want. There is clear public support for nominations to be taken out of the hands of party leaders and given exclusively to HOLAC. The Wakeham commission recommended that most Peers be nominated by HOLAC. If we do not make changes now, more radical reform beckons.
This debate gives the House the opportunity to send out a clear signal as to the need for reform of the nomination process and a recognition that change is necessary to establish confidence in that process. The defence offered for the existing system, I submit, is not sustainable. In the debate on the previous Bill, we were told that the Prime Minister is the one who makes the nominations and is accountable to Parliament for those nominations. That is constitutionally correct. It is also a practical nonsense. When was the last time a Prime Minister was held accountable, in any meaningful form, for nominations to this House? The Prime Minister is not the one who suffers in any significant manner. It is this House that gets the political opprobrium. Under this Bill, the Prime Minister would remain the sole person responsible for submitting names to the monarch, but he or she would work within a process designed to ensure that those being nominated were, and were seen to be, highly qualified.
The other objection raised was that the Bill would give too much power to HOLAC, a body that is unelected and not accountable for its actions. I believe that is based on a false premise. HOLAC would be created by law and if it was seen to be acting in an inappropriate way, its role could be changed by law. In any event, the powers being conferred are limited and, I believe, proportionate. The only power will be one of restraint, requiring the Prime Minister to wait two years before being able to resubmit a name. The more significant challenge to the Bill is not that it gives too much power to HOLAC but that it confers too little.
We are now in March. This Bill is not going to make it to the statute book unless the Government facilitate its passage or take it over. I am not overly optimistic that the Minister will make such a promise. What we can do is use this opportunity to acknowledge the need to reform the process by which Members reach this place. We have to embrace change to enable us to do even better what we already do well and, even more crucial to this debate, demonstrate that we recognise public discontent with the process as it stands. Doing nothing is not a viable option. I beg to move.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a huge honour to follow the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and to speak here for the first time.
It has been a whirlwind few weeks and I am so very grateful to everyone who has helped and supported me: Black Rod and all the staff here for the incredibly thorough induction process and wonderful, warm welcome, as well as my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Hodge, both of whom have been so crucial in my career to date and have helped enormously in making my formal introduction a tiny bit less scary.
Having survived that a couple of weeks ago does not make it any less daunting to stand here, not least because I usually never speak without the prop of a full deck of PowerPoint slides. Frankly, I was disappointed to learn from my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith—who have been so helpful in every other way—that I would not be able to use slides here this morning, so please bear with me as I speak unadorned.
I am new here, but I am not new to politics. My first election was in 1987, when—along with the late, great Philip Gould—I worked on Labour’s campaign. Young Labour Party staffers I spoke to recently were amazed by this, as most had not even been born then, and pressed me for quaint stories about the olden days. I can see that many noble Lords here will not need any such briefing.
I have worked on almost every general election since, and often on what happened in between too. Overall, if my career has been about anything, it has been about keeping the organisations I have worked with—businesses, government, political parties and their leaders—in closer touch with those whom they serve. Focus groups and polling have been the tools of my trade. In my view these are not dark arts, as some characterise them, but an effective way of creating an open, sustained and positive connection. And politics—let us face it—needs that positive connection; it is very much a work in progress.
Disappointingly, we have been heading in the wrong direction. Trust in politics has plummeted to its lowest score for 40 years. This is not a party-political point. Fewer than one in 10 people trust politicians, of any hue, to tell the truth—although your Lordships might take heart from being slightly more trusted than estate agents or journalists. But the grim statistics speak for themselves: only 28% say they have any confidence in the House of Commons. In focus groups, Prime Minister’s Questions—the one set-piece debate that the public watch—is seen to epitomise everything that is bad about politics. It is shouty, it is point-scoring, it is partisan and, frankly, it is rude.
Here in this place, I gather we like to do things differently. Certainly, from what I have seen so far, noble Lords are nothing if not courteous. However, the same poll revealed that confidence in the Lords was 8% lower than in the Commons, at just 20%. This is not something any of us can afford to ignore. If people lose faith in our institutions, our democracy weakens, and a weak democracy loses legitimacy. A recent poll suggested that more than half of Gen Z voters—that is, very young people—would rather be led by a strong dictator who does not bother with elections. Even if that is only half right, it is pretty scary. Our democratic institutions are facing the biggest sustained attack since the Second World War. This is urgent. It is harder for us here than it is in the other place; there, they are accountable to an electorate every few years and that sure focuses the mind. We are going to have to work a lot harder on building that positive connection. Like my noble friend Lady Chapman, I am from Darlington. I often ask myself, “What on earth would Darlington think?”. We must all keep asking such a question and we must make it our duty to know the answer.
How we are appointed here and, crucially, how the public perceive how and why we are appointed here, really matter too. It is just one part of the wider package of reform that people voted for when they voted for change so resolutely last July. The most significant change we could make, by some distance, is removing hereditary Peers. Nearly 70% of the public strongly support this move. That must be our main focus in reform.
There is also a lot that we can do to shine a light on the excellent work that is done here every day—day in, day out. Two-thirds of people say they know little or nothing about what happens here, and that is on us. That is why we need to shake things up and transform our reputation and performance. There is a lot at stake, and I am very much looking forward to playing my own role here in the future.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Mattinson. We expected an excellent maiden speech from her this morning and we were not disappointed, because the content, as well as the delivery, lived up to expectations. I congratulate my noble friend. As it happens, her speech was entirely in line with much of what was said by my friend from university days, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in relation to reputation.
I owe my noble friend Lady Mattinson a debt of gratitude. As she described, her entry into the wider political arena was in 1987. She said that did not engage in the dark arts, but I seem to remember she was working with someone who did, who is now our ambassador in Washington. I owe her one, because I entered the House of Commons in 1987 with the largest majority that I ever got—of over 24,000—and I never matched it again, so I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the reputation of politics and the way in which people see us—both in Parliament and outside—and the critical nature of the threat to democracy and the way in which we conduct ourselves. That is true in terms of young people. I did a citizenship class earlier this week with a school and discovered that none of the 28 young people read a newspaper. Only six of them ever regularly watched the evening news, but over half of them had, either deliberately or by algorithm, been affected by Andrew Tate. We have a major problem and we here in Parliament have to set an example.
I know—because I have supported my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on previous occasions—that the tortoise, and not the hare, is the way in which we conduct ourselves. When the tortoise gets shot, rather than the hare, we are in difficulty. I say to Members opposite that had the Grocott proposals been supported by the whole House, and they were by the majority, the historic Disraeli way of doing things from the Conservative Benches might have achieved a different outcome from the Bill we are dealing with in Committee at the moment.
On the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, transparency, clarity and support for the reputation of having people nominated to this House in a way that is understandable and justifiable are really important, as is the intent of the Bill to reduce numbers to no greater than in the House of Commons.
If my noble friend the Chief Whip will forgive me—I do not think he will—I want to finish by saying that I think there is a cunning plan. The cunning plan is that we are kept here until the early hours of the morning until the numbers drop by dint of the Grim Reaper. It is time that, even within our self-regulation, we got a grip, because there is not a trade union leader in Britain who would put up with the way we do things in terms of timetabling. It is time now to take on board both the first speeches here this morning and get the reputation of politics back on track.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it seems that we never stop talking about ourselves to ourselves, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on securing a Second Reading of this well-aired Bill and want to touch on three aspects.
The first is the significant amendment to the House of Lords Appointments Commission remit to include the criterion of
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”.
The emphasis was, and is, on maintaining the quality of the House of Lords by recruiting from a pool of those with conspicuous merit. The Bill enjoins the nominating bodies—be they political parties or other organisations—to submit, along with the nomination, the procedures and criteria involved in the initial selection of potential Peers. This points to the elimination of individuals who may offer only their donor credentials, rather than those of suitability and/or conspicuous merit.
Secondly, the requirement for the House of Lords to be no larger than the House of Commons imposes on the Prime Minister an obligation to be mindful of the number of Peers nominated by his or her office. The “one in, two out” procedure first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would, in time, contribute to a reduction in the size of the House if further augmented by a renewed effort on the part of group Leaders to ask non-contributors to retire. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, presciently said in November 2022 when discussing the earlier Bill, a lack of restraint on numbers might cause a future Labour Government to feel justified in introducing stricter mechanisms. This we know to be true.
Thirdly, while many of these changes do not require primary legislation—all that is needed is the agreement of the Government and, hey presto, we could, in a short time, have a smaller, more effective, less expensive and a more justifiable Chamber—they do require the willingness of the Government of the day and, in particular, the Prime Minister to relinquish a measure of patronage power. It can only be hoped that this Bill, and other internal and external pressures, will create a culture in which this can happen. What I mean by this is that current and future Prime Ministers will feel bound to nominate new peerages very sparingly and with the new HOLAC criteria in mind.
This second attempt to adopt a modest, practical and effective Bill is once again before us and I hope that it might go significantly further this time around.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, not only because of the privilege of hearing from my noble friend Lady Mattinson, whom I am sure the Conservatives fear because of her incredible knowledge about the thinking and behaviour of voters, but to support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I now have the privilege of co-chairing the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. Indeed, as he described, much work has already been done by that campaign, not on my watch but before then, under his tutelage and that of the late Lord Cormack, much missed in this parish.
The Bill has been here before, as we heard, but without the then Government’s support. Interestingly, the Norton Bill was in some ways juggling for attention along with other Bills from my noble friend Lord Grocott to end hereditary by-elections, which the then Conservative Government refused to support—although I see that now they are out of office, they somehow think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps, now that Boris Johnson can no longer nominate reams of Peers—some not entirely to the liking of HOLAC—the Conservatives might also suddenly see the wisdom of today’s Bill and rush to its support.
The purpose of the Bill has been well elaborated by its sponsor. Therefore, I just want to do one thing: to underline the importance of the fact that if this change is enacted, it will have emanated from your Lordships’ House. That seems an important item. It is not a matter of us “pulling up the drawbridge” after we are all safely over it but of using our understanding of the role we play here, the demands made of our Members, the need for appropriate participation, the importance of balance between the two main parties, and the vital role that, as we all know, is played by the Cross Benches. It is about putting that together; we know there is a better way of scrutinising who should join us and the criteria for who should join us so that we have a House able to meet the very demanding asks we make of our Members.
There are of course issues in the Bill, not those referred to by the Delegated Powers Committee—which were a little over the top for a short Bill, but never mind—but others, which I hope we will be able to discuss in Committee. But this principle has to be right, and I am delighted to support the Bill in its Second Reading.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her most accomplished speech this morning. We are old friends and colleagues from another place, and although we have different political views, I look forward very much to hearing more from her in the period to come. I also thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the way in which he introduced this Bill, although I am afraid that I do not support it—I will explain why.
When the House debated the Burns report some years ago, I was one of the few Members who spoke against the recommendations. That was because it proposed that the House of Lords, an unelected House, should decide on the size and composition of itself, and I thought that was fundamentally wrong. I have the same objection, I am afraid, to the Bill before us today. It proposes to take away from the Prime Minister the power to appoint Members of this House. The last word on who sits and does not sit in this House would rest with members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—not the elected House of Commons, the elected Government or the elected Prime Minister, but the unelected HOLAC. This is absolutely no criticism of the members of HOLAC; as far as I can tell, they are of unimpeachable integrity and wise and experienced —but they are not elected.
The Bill sets out two criteria, one of which is “conspicuous merit”, although I know my noble friend said he was not wedded to that particular form of words. I looked up “merit” in the dictionary, and it is defined as “excellence”. Of course, if we were looking for excellence in nursing, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, would pass with flying colours, and if we were looking at media, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would pass with flying colours. But it is such a woolly definition, and I am not sure why we should not have people in the House of “inconspicuous merit” as well.
I return to my core point. I cannot accept that Members of this House should be appointed by unelected people, however great and good they are. They are not elected.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a HOLAC-nominated Peer, and before I speak to my key point, I want to speak briefly about the impact of the HOLAC process on those of us who arrive through it.
Applying to HOLAC is much like applying for a job: you research the role and the organisation, complete an application and then articulate your suitability at interview. The panel has to be convinced not only by suitability but by capacity and your understanding of the House and the role of a Peer. That does not make us better or worse Peers but it shapes expectations and instils a strong sense that, while membership is a great privilege, it is also a job of work.
The key point I want to raise in relation to the Bill is criteria and, specifically, the clause allowing for additional criteria with
“regard to the diversity of the United Kingdom population”.
There is no constitutional requirement for this House to be representative, but most of us share an aspiration that it should fully reflect a diverse UK, and I understand this to mean not just religious and ethnic diversity but socioeconomic and geographic diversity. We want this House to include younger Peers, Peers who come from all parts of the country, from different faiths, ethnicities and socioeconomic groups, and we want them to attend on a regular basis.
Yet without some creative thinking, this aspiration will remain just that, because the combined effect of our procedures and systems and the London property market militates against the ambition to include people from outside London and the south-east—and particularly those who are younger or from lower socioeconomic groups. Without access to accommodation in or around London, Members are not only subject to the exorbitant cost of overnight stays but cannot be at home to meet caring or family responsibilities, and it is only by living within striking distance of the House that Peers without additional means can combine regular attendance with the kind of job that will allow them to secure and sustain a mortgage or accrue a pension.
This means that we risk having to choose between socioeconomic diversity, age, regional representation and attendance. A London-based schoolteacher could make it work, but it is hard to imagine how a 35 year-old teacher from, say, Bolton, could actively participate in the House while holding down her job.
Noble Lords might argue that our membership already includes young Peers from outside London, and of course it does, but the size of the sample group is hardly statistically valid. They might also argue that life Peers have managed this conundrum since 1958—but times have changed. Without radical thinking about our procedures and systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has already said, and without taking any account of intersectionality, we risk a situation in which our efforts to increase diversity may have the opposite effect.
A final point, in the minutes I do not have left, is the potential for HOLAC to fulfil a skills audit function, tasked over a fixed period with assessing what skills the House will lose on the departure of the hereditary Peers and then actively recruiting an agreed number to bring those skills to the House. In many cases, departing Peers would be the strongest candidates and would rejoin in a transparent and open process. It might uncover some brilliant new Peers but its real value would be that it had the continued effectiveness and reputation of the House at its heart. That is the intent of the Bill, and it should underpin all our efforts to reform this House and its membership.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to agree largely with the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her excellent maiden speech. As has been said, we are very aware of and respect her political expertise; we do not fear it. We welcome her to this House. I am quite sure she qualifies as having “conspicuous merit”.
I have some questions on this Bill, which restricts the Prime Minister’s ability to appoint Peers with an effective size restriction, but does not impose the same restraint on the commission, which could nominate unlimited numbers to this House, effectively restricting the Prime Minister’s capacity if we were to keep to the 650. There is a minimum size of 20% but not a maximum. Why is that? Strangely, the Bill then excludes people who have supported a party in the past two years from being four out of the nine nominated to the commission. Why is that? This is a political House, and politics determines our Members. Why should an unelected, opaque committee run by the elite to perpetuate the elite be allowed to veto a person the elected PM, who is elected by MPs to get to that position, wants to be part of the legislature? That is how it will be seen by the public.
Although I wholeheartedly approve of a mechanism to ensure that your Lordships’ House contains people who remain committed to work in the House, I do not believe the Bill achieves it. All it requires is that nominees must show
“a willingness and capacity to contribute”
at the time of being introduced—as if anyone would say, “Oh, I don’t have the willingness or the capacity”. I am an employee of a financial services company. I chair four charities. I am on the board of five others. I chair a public company. I am a treasurer of the party. If anyone looked at my record, they would say, “Well, he doesn’t have capacity”, but I have an 82% voting record.
I am also unhappy with the effective veto the commission would have over the PM’s choice. Nominations frequently come from opposition party leaders, thankfully. There is one case about which I happen to know more than most and in which, in my opinion, HOLAC was possibly ill informed and possibly then gave an ill-judged view. I would feel very uncomfortable that a commission of unelected people, however eminent, could overrule the democratically elected Prime Minister of this country. Who are they to determine what is “conspicuous merit”? That is fine, but what does “conspicuous merit” mean? As we discussed on the hereditaries Bill this week, is it people who just served well in their job, be it in the Commons, the judiciary, the civil service or business, who are entitled to be in this House? I argue not. Anyone who is to be elevated must show they have contributed to society over and above their paid, salaried day job. That does not seem to be envisaged in this Bill. Most importantly, they must show that they are able to contribute in areas where greater contribution is needed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, indicated, the Bill allows the commission itself to propose additional criteria without any approval from Parliament or government. This is a very dangerous open invitation to allow a private, secret, unelected group to determine who it thinks are appropriate Members of this House, when clearly that should remain with our Prime Minister —and, of course, other political leaders. The issue of judicial review, as eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, is still not determined. I welcome reform, but I do not believe this Bill addresses the real issues we face in this House.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in my view the Bill is clear and proportionate and gives HOLAC powers I believe it should have possessed when first established. In the very short time I have, I shall speak to two challenges the Bill engages, but first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and congratulate him on bringing it before your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on her excellent maiden speech. The undoubted merit of it was, and here I paraphrase the words of Robert Burns, the Scottish poet—who wrote them, by the way, in my former constituency—the gift to help us see ourselves as others see us.
On that subject, in recent years your Lordships’ House has been criticised as unrepresentative, but one way in which it has mirrored British society and economy is in the fact that it has suffered from gross inflation. Clause 3 stipulates that the Prime Minister, when recommending new life Peers, must have regard to the principle that the membership of the House of Lords must be no larger than that of the other place, as well as other measures ensuring political balance. It is possible to have too much of a good thing, and this measure is a good step towards rationing the number of ornaments to the legislative process who can serve in your Lordships’ House.
Clauses 2 and 7 amplify the power of HOLAC in its interaction with the Prime Minister of the day. Noble Lords will be familiar with the “good chaps” theory of government of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy: the notion that our conventions, including those around patronage, are predicated on the idea that those at the top of government could be relied on to behave ethically. In this connection, I feel that the decision of a previous Prime Minister to overrule HOLAC for the first time strengthens the argument for the provisions we are considering today. I understand the constitutional concerns of those who believe that granting HOLAC the power to refuse a prime ministerial nomination interferes with prerogative powers, but given that the two chief criteria by which such a refusal might be made are “conspicuous merit” and
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”,
I do not think these measures, while increasing public confidence in the process by which appointments are made, will meaningfully dilute prime ministerial power.
It is difficult to see how public life is improved by allowing the Prime Minister to appoint an unmeritorious Peer or one who is unwilling or unable meaningfully to contribute to our proceedings. It is rare that I venture a footballing analogy on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but I see this improved HOLAC as something analogous to VAR. Where the Prime Minister has made, to use footballing phraseology, a clear and obvious error in nominating someone unfit, HOLAC gives the Prime Minister the chance to think again and, if appropriate, resubmit the name after a two-year interval. There are many other merits that the Bill possesses but, mindful of time, I shall resume my seat and allow other noble Lords to continue to enumerate them.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I was canvassing one day, and I came across a man who had the simplest imaginable concern, which was to do with speed bumps. I said, “I tell you what I’m going to do; I’m going to get you the leader of your district council”. He said, “Oh yeah, that’ll be the day”. I said, “No, he’s just down the road”, I left the two of them together, and then the leader of the district council came back and said, “I’ve sorted him out”. I said, “That’s wonderful. What are you going to do about the traffic calming?”. He said, “I don’t mean that; I mean he’s voting for us”. I said, “That’s great, but what about the issue the poor fellow had about the speed bumps?”. He said, “Well, that’s not really to do with me; that’s county”. I said, “Hang on, wait a minute; you are a county councillor”—which he was, as well as being leader of his district council. He said, “Well, I say county; it’s really highways authority”. There we were, representing three of the four tiers of government under which this poor man was governed—and if the MP had been there, it would have been no different—and we could not begin to address the simplest concern he had about something that affected his life every day.
Now, is it any wonder that that man, and millions like him, have stopped voting? They no longer see any connection between where they mark their ballot and any consequential changes in their life. Power has been shifted from elected representatives to unelected officials. Where are we allowed to drill for oil? What sentences can courts impose? On what terms can disruptive children be excluded from class? On what terms can people who entered this country illegally be deported? These are no longer decisions made by people who are in any sense accountable to the rest of the country. We have this myth that somehow when people are appointed to these quangos and expert bodies, their prejudices and assumptions disappear and they become magically wise and disinterested simply by virtue of being appointed. But that is not true of other quangos, and it is not true of HOLAC.
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State for Health has just said about not just abolishing the large quangocracy at the top of the NHS but this being part of a broader democratisation process. I hope we all support the Government in that endeavour, but how can we then say that one of the two legislative Chambers should be appointed by a bunch of good chaps without any direct oversight by the population? By the way, who appoints HOLAC—quis custodiet ipsos custodes? At the moment it is appointed by the Prime Minister, but since the whole object—the purpose, if I understand it—of my noble friend Lord Norton’s Bill is to try to take away that power from the Executive, presumably there would have to be some different method of appointing it. How are we going to do that? It seems to me that the only fair way of ensuring an appointments mechanism that is genuinely answerable to the population would be to elect HOLAC. Hang on—if we are going to do that, why not go the whole hog, totus porcus, and elect your Lordships’ Chamber too?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I praise the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his perseverance on this subject. I spoke at Second Reading on 18 November 2022, and am privileged to do so again. Once again, his timing is exemplary. The previous debate took place in the wake of a previous Prime Minister’s rather generous showering of new Peers on this Chamber—a syndrome I have referred to on more than one occasion as long Boris. This time, we have a new Government and a lot of talk about House of Lords reform, most of it far less focused than this quite small, modest Bill.
I speak as somebody who is a hereditary Peer of clearly inconspicuous merit, but somebody who has professionally advised on appointments for 31 years as a headhunter. Putting boards and executive teams together is rather like constructing a jigsaw; each piece is slightly different. I also chair a fairly active nominations and governance committee.
If we look at what this House does best, we find that it is very simple: it is scrutiny of legislation and it is committee work. In the House of Commons, it is all about numbers and getting your legislation through or opposing the other side through thick and thin. In the House of Lords, it is more about getting it right, which sometimes means losing a vote or having thoughtful interventions—heaven forbid—by one’s own party colleagues. Getting it right could be greatly improved by a more thoughtful and strategic approach to who is appointed and why. The people’s Peers are quite a good example of that.
If we look at the 30 new colleagues announced on the Government’s side in December, we see that 22 of them—in other words, 73%—are a combination of ex-Members of Parliament and ex-members of trade unions or leaders of unions, and that six have worked with and for the party. I in no way question their collective or individual merits. Indeed, as Nick Thomas-Symonds wrote on 5 December:
“It is for party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals for appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/24; col. 21WS.]
Is this a sufficiently thoughtful and strategic way of building the necessary capability for this House to do what it does best? We should use the opportunity given by the debate about reform to look more broadly at the bigger picture. Justification versus assertion is a good basis on which to proceed.
Clearly, this Bill is a stalking horse, and a very good one, for thinking about appointment to this rather extraordinary institution as part of a broader debate about reform. I urge the Government to co-opt it and to assist the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in nudging us bravely into the second quarter of the 21st century.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice once again in support of this Bill. It is a useful measure to enhance the effectiveness and credibility of this House. I say in passing, if I may, that I really enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson. She will make a huge contribution to the work before us.
I welcome this debate for three reasons. First, there are the merits of the case for this Bill, which were well spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, this morning. It is aimed at increasing public trust in the process by which Members are appointed to this House. The measure enjoys widespread support in this House, among constitutional experts and among the public at large. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has listened to comments made on his previous draft Bill and has produced a revised version. It deserves considerable attention and further consideration.
Secondly, I want to use this opportunity to urge the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to continue with a programme of wider reform of the House of Lords. It is not enough for the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to be the end of the story. There is so much more to be done. It will take parliamentary time, but it will be time well spent if it results in better lawmaking and greater trust in Parliament.
This brings me to my last point. I, like others, want to put this proposed reform in the wider context that is on all our minds. Our democracy is under threat as never before: externally, from a radically more unstable international environment, and internally, from the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. We can and we will respond to these challenges. One imperative among many is to redouble our efforts to strengthen our own parliamentary system through a clear agenda of constitutional reform. This modest but sensible proposal is part of that process.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on her excellent speech; I look forward to many more contributions.
I give broad support for this Bill. This is the third day this week that we have debated, in effect, this House. As a Deputy Speaker, I have sat at the Table listening to some very interesting speeches This Bill is about the future and, when the history is written of the reform of the 2020s, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, I think that my noble friend Lord Grocott, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will all have their place in it. I speak as a fellow member of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. Our current system of appointments is widely thought to be inadequate to protect the reputation of the House and, hence, to protect the credibility of its work. After all, and despite the surroundings of this building, we are a workshop, not a museum.
In the time available, I want to make a couple of brief points. To start with a word about Part 3, I listened to an exchange earlier this week between the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about whether putting it on a statutory basis would make it justiciable. I am not a lawyer, but I am convinced, partly by the exchange and partly by Clause 3, that that would not be a problem for the future. It is right for HOLAC to give advice, but it is still right for the Prime Minister to refuse it. What this Bill will do is to strengthen the position of HOLAC vis-à-vis the Prime Minister. I do not blame Prime Ministers—I do not think that there is anyone here, if they became a Prime Minister, who would not be tempted by the power of patronage. For every person you appoint, you can keep 10 people hovering about trying to do what you want anyway.
I look at this Bill in the context of British political and constitutional history: the struggle for the franchise; the struggle of Parliament over the monarch, and now the Executive. We have fought kings in the past. I remember that, in the previous debate we had on this in November 2022, our noble and dear departed friend Lord Judge made a wonderful speech about this, which is well worth listening to. This Bill has its place in the story of reform. It may be that the Government do not choose to support it today, but, when we look ahead, I think it will form part of the future and a wider package of reforms, which we do not have time to discuss at length now. On that basis, this is a Bill that is worth debating and worth giving a Second Reading to today, so that the debate can move forward.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said about this Bill—it is essential to our democracy. In the democratic principles, Parliament makes the rules and the Executive are meant to carry them out, enforce them and run things. The Prime Minister is the head of the Executive; he is the First Minister of the Executive. However, because of accidents of history, he is also the King’s adviser. A lot of the powers that the Prime Minister has were the old prerogative powers of the Crown before Magna Carta, when some were taken away because we did not want to circumscribe those things. Certain things were left with the Crown, including the power to make war and make treaties, and to appoint Lords to create new peerages. It is a relic of the past.
People have said, in rubbishing some of the issues around the hereditary peerage Bill, that this is okay and is democratic because it goes through the democratically elected Prime Minister, who recommends to the King that the Peers should be appointed and brought to the Lords. The trouble with this is that our system is, as Lord Hailsham described it in 1976, an “elective dictatorship”. For five years or thereabouts, the Prime Minister has a lot of absolute power, and there is very little control over that—it is not quite as democratic as one thinks.
This Bill would allow a certain amount of parliamentary control over that right of the Prime Minister, which dates back hundreds of years, after they have been elected, when they may no longer be subjected to as much parliamentary control. Very often, Governments are not elected by the majority of the public anyway, so there are issues like that. This Bill goes a long way to addressing that. We can toy around with things, but we should start with the Bill and then move forward from there.
The Bill addresses the big concern that Parliament, certainly the Lords, will lose its independent voice. This is a brilliant way of ensuring that the Cross-Bench element, and the various members of the public who are not interested or do not have the mindset to become politicians—who can be very different from people who have technical mindsets or particular interests—are still maintained in Parliament at some level. That is essential. This Bill goes a long way towards resolving it.
If the Government were to add this Bill’s provisions to the hereditary Peers Bill, it would go some way to fulfilling the Privy Council oath, given that the departure of the remaining hereditary Peers would be linked to democratic reform of the Lords. Personally, I would insert it there and we would do the whole thing in one go; I and the other departing hereditaries would be much happier with that.
The point about the ouster clause is a good one. The problem of judicial review over these appointments was raised in the other debate. It is a good idea; it would prevent that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this Bill, both on principle and because I think it is piecemeal in nature, poorly drafted and pernicious. It fails to address important questions: will it widen participation and make this House more democratic, more efficient, more effective and more inclusive?
Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing will embed semi-permanently an already closed and opaque system of appointment. It will result in the establishment of an unaccountable, undemocratic and self-perpetuating body whose Members share the same liberal, metropolitan viewpoint and hostility to those who take a contrary opinion. It will weaken the reputation and legitimacy of this House and, more fundamentally, undermine the Prime Minister’s long-established constitutional prerogative right to appoint Peers on a case-by-case basis in an open system that guarantees accountability to Parliament, to his or her constituents, to the media and to others. HOLAC adjudicating on propriety is one thing, but suitability is a step too far.
The Bill also continues the regrettable trend of the accretion of power and decision-making away from elected politicians and towards quangos—and more recently, inter alia, activist judges. It is predicated on the idea that HOLAC is a model of success, but is it? Although noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are of course noted for their knowledge, skills, experience and wisdom, they remain drawn from a narrow educational, social, political, economic and demographic cohort. Will we see more working-class men from Yorkshire and the east Midlands? Will we see more young women, people from south Wales and disabled people? I doubt it.
As my noble friend Lord Hannan said, it is a myth that any public body can be truly independent and impartial. Every sentient, thinking person is subject to predisposition, prejudice and assumption. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton: the “good chap” theory of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was never about heavy-handed legislation. It was always about enduring conventions; it is a value judgment whether they have been observed.
Finally, the Bill contains a number of clauses that are deeply worrying. The words “as it deems appropriate” do lot of heavy lifting in Clauses 5, 7 and 8. I am particularly concerned about the ouster clause, Clause 10 on non-justiciability, which I believe is unprecedented and problematic and will potentially be struck out in Committee.
In conclusion, we all know that, to a certain extent, this legislation arose from one hard case under the premiership of Boris Johnson in 2020. That is regrettable because, as we know, hard cases are very likely to make very bad law.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill and the process of making HOLAC statutory. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not have time to explain why today. In my view, there are more important issues affecting this House before we consider election, the age of Members and other similar matters. The excellent maiden speech gave us a great deal to think about and reflect upon; I am very grateful for that.
In my view, the reputation of this House is much affected by its size. We are the largest House in the world apart from China. I do not think that goes down all that well with the public. Why are we so large? It is due to the prerogative and to the appointments made by successive Prime Ministers over the years I have been in this House, which is quite a long time. Some of them are bringing in more than 200 Members during a period of six or eight years. There is no requirement on somebody invited to become a Member of this House to make any sort of contribution, and there is no requirement to attend. When you think about it, is that not extraordinary?
So we have those who do not attend. I asked for some statistics from the Library. I understand that 127 Members had attendance rates of between 0% and 9% last year, while 110 Members were between 10% and 19%. All attended less than 20% of our sittings, and some almost nought. Moreover, we have leaves of absence. There is one Member who has been out for eight and a half years on a leave of absence, and quite a number who have been away for several years. We now have a rule that if people cease to attend altogether, they cease to be Members, but only 16 people have ceased to be Members under that rule.
We are losing the hereditary Peers—it is right that they should go because the way in which they come in is unacceptable nowadays—but the fact is that they have made an enormous contribution to this House, yet no one is doing anything about those who do not attend or contribute. There is no suggestion to deal with that from the Government. Could not this House, by our own rules, look at what we might be able to do and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, become the hares, not the tortoises?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on his tenacity in working with other Members of this House to advance issues that improve our reputation and effectiveness, and on his masterful introduction to his Bill this morning. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her striking maiden speech. She brings to the House great knowledge and understanding of what people think; her statistics about the reputation of the House were devastating and must, I believe, be acted on.
In this House there are radical reformers, those who support only modest and incremental reforms, and a few Members who can hardly be regarded as reformers at all. The principles of this Bill have appeared today to have the general support of all but the third group. The objections of the noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne, Lord Leigh and Lord Hannan, appear to be based on far greater trust in the people who become Prime Minister than most people have. I and my party are in the first group: radical reformers. We would go much further than this Bill. Moving to an elected Chamber has been our stance since Liberal Governments had to fight general elections on the issue of House of Lords reform before the First World War.
Being radical reformers does not by any means put us on the opposing side of serious attempts to improve both the reputation and the effectiveness of the House. The urgency of enacting the kind of reforms proposed in this Bill has increased over time since the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in 2000. Soon afterwards, the cash for honours scandal erupted. In the investigation that followed, I was personally thanked by the former Scotland Yard assistant commissioner known as “Yates of the Yard” for the information I provided to him about how Peers were nominated and how political parties recorded donations. Exactly 100 years after Lloyd George’s selling of peerages was supposed to be banned by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, the link between major party donors, who are legally allowed to give unlimited sums of money, and the creation of new peerages continues to cause controversy.
It is not just cash that causes controversy over our appointments. The scale of them—the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to the condition of “long Boris”, and I think we know what he means—the lack of transparency and sometimes their appropriateness cause genuine concern. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the significant ethical concerns about some appointments. The lack of effective scrutiny backed by investigatory powers, and the present powers of the Prime Minister to simply override objections from HOLAC, make it harder for some Peers to be seen as worthy Members doing a good job.
The argument has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others, that we should not interfere with the role of the Prime Minister as adviser to the King. Previous monarchs, such as Edward VII, found themselves embroiled in controversy by entreating this House to either support the People’s Budget or to face the creation of hundreds of Liberal Peers committed to it. Such controversy is unthinkable in the 21st century, so there is absolutely no constraint on the Prime Minister acting as adviser to the King.
It has been suggested that Prime Ministers are somehow subject to the democratic accountability of the electorate. But how was the electorate able to exercise its judgement over the 79 life peerages created by Boris Johnson, especially those on his resignation list, or the 32 peerages created by Liz Truss after being Prime Minister for just 49 days? Even Prime Ministers who face a general election are not subject to proper scrutiny over their nominations to this place. Has anyone here ever seen specific references to a person being made a Peer in a candidate’s election address, a party broadcast or a press conference? No; we do not have real scrutiny over prime ministerial nominations, especially when objections from HOLAC can be overruled.
Sometimes, our only weapon is ridicule. I recall the pithy response of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who is not in his place, saying of Boris Johnson’s appointments that he was reminded of Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate. That was prevented only by the assassination of Caligula. How can Prime Ministers be held accountable for their appointments when they have had to be defenestrated by their own party before facing a general election?
This Bill is not a radical reform but a sensible step forward, and we should not oppose modest reforms just because we believe that they may not go far enough. We need greater checks and balances in our system. There is too much power with an Executive who are not directly elected, and not enough with the legislature—both parts of which should be chosen, in our view, by those directly affected by the laws that it passes.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, replies to the debate on behalf of the Government, I remind him of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, when she wound up for the Opposition at the end of the Second Reading of a similar Bill in November 2022. She said:
“We are broadly in agreement on where we are seeking to get to, with occasional differences on the right way to achieve that”.—[Official Report, 18/11/22; col. 1122.]
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will assure us of government support, at some point, to take this measure forward with further scrutiny and enable a necessary and worthwhile reform to take place.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on securing the Second Reading of his Bill and thank him very much for setting out his arguments with such clarity. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her interesting and informative maiden speech. I wholeheartedly agree with her that we should promote the excellent work of your Lordships’ House.
I think we can all agree that we want a House of Lords that serves with integrity and commands public trust, and an appointments process that preserves the best of our traditions while adapting to the demands of modern democracy. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, currently provides a non-statutory safeguard within the process for appointments to this House. It has a clear but limited role: to recommend non-party-political Members for the Cross Benches, ensuring that this House benefits from independent expertise; and to provide vetting advice on nominations for life peerages. Crucially, its recommendations are advisory and do not bind a Prime Minister.
A number of noble Lords have emphasised the modest nature of the changes in my noble friend’s Bill, but it proposes significant changes to the powers and operation of HOLAC, including making its recommendations binding and placing it on a statutory basis. It also places greater powers of nomination to this unelected Chamber in the hands of an unelected committee, as my noble friend Lord Leigh so effectively highlighted, as well as putting de facto limits on the number of Peers that can be created. Although I deeply respect my noble friend’s intentions, I must express my concerns regarding the direction of travel that most of these proposals suggest.
The Bill would establish HOLAC on a statutory basis and strengthen the commission’s role in the appointments process. The aim—to secure greater legitimacy and transparency for HOLAC—is honourable. The effect, however, would be disastrous. Placing HOLAC on a statutory footing would not clarify its role; it would fundamentally alter it. Legislation would create a legal framework against which HOLAC’s decisions could be formally challenged in court, opening the door for both the malicious and the litigious to claim that it had failed to fulfil its legal duties. These concerns have been raised previously by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, who has served on the commission, and by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, a distinguished former chairman.
Instead of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, HOLAC would become a body subject to judicial review, forced to justify its reasoning in court, constrained by legal precedent and bound to operate not based on judgment but within the narrow confines of justiciability. Candidates not recommended for appointment as Cross-Bench Peers could contest the basis on which they were excluded. Those who failed the conspicuous merit test, which is based on judgment rather than law, could argue that it had been misapplied. The Prime Minister’s discretion, exercised on HOLAC’s advice, would be second-guessed not in this House but in the courts.
I appreciate that Clause 10 seeks to make the commission’s recommendations non-justiciable, but the courts have shown increased willingness to interpret and disapply ouster clauses, particularly where fundamental principles of legality and procedural fairness are at stake. I share my noble friend Lord Jackson’s concerns on this point. The courts should have no role in determining the membership of your Lordships’ House. That would run contrary to the principle of a separation of powers.
Clause 2 would strengthen the commission’s role in the appointments process in two key respects. First, the Prime Minister would be required to refer the name of an individual to the commission before recommending them for a life peerage. Secondly, it would require the Prime Minister to wait until the commission had advised on whether a nominated individual met specific criteria before recommending them to the Crown, in effet, giving it a veto over nominations. This would represent a profound constitutional change. The Prime Minister—the only person in this process with a democratic mandate —would be restricted in their ability to recommend life peerages and the power would be vested in an unelected and ultimately unaccountable body.
The Prime Minister does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role, scrutinising appointments and applying the propriety test, but, crucially, the Prime Minister makes the final decision. That balance matters. If HOLAC gets it wrong—if it misjudges a candidate or applies the conspicuous merit test too narrowly or loosely—the Prime Minister can correct it. If the Prime Minister gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and, ultimately, the judgment of the electorate. This system holds both in check. If the Prime Minister were stripped of that role, HOLAC’s decisions would become final. There would be no backstop, political oversight or democratic accountability. More than that, it would break a fundamental constitutional principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, emphasised so effectively earlier this week. The Prime Minister is the monarch’s chief adviser; it is not for an unelected commission to take on that role—a point reinforced very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Sherbourne.
Appointments to this House must be made by those who answer to the people, not a body with no democratic mandate, no political accountability and no direct link to the people. The principal criteria for appointing new Peers in Clause 7 of the Bill are
“conspicuous merit, and a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”.
While I understand the intention behind this, I struggle to see how one could determine legally what constitutes conspicuous merit and how contribution would be measured. We have endured a number of debates on that very issue this week. These are by their very nature subjective judgments and in a democracy such judgments should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than with those who are accountable to no one.
These amendments do not simply tweak the appointments process. They fundamentally recast the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC was created as an advisory committee, to advise, not command. To make its recommendations binding is to transform it from a source of counsel to the ultimate arbiter of membership of your Lordships’ House. It would no longer be a check but a gatekeeper. This Bill claims to fortify the appointments process by placing HOLAC on a statutory footing, yet at the same time it strips away one of the most fundamental principles of good governance: accountability. It grants HOLAC the power to block nominations for two years but then shields its decisions from judicial review.
This is not some dry technicality. It is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present, the system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC advises, the Prime Minister decides. If a Prime Minister presses her head against its recommendation, the commission ensures transparency by informing Parliament. The check is there, the scrutiny is real. Crucially, it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee, who must justify their judgment to the country.
HOLAC plays an important role in safeguarding propriety and ensuring that this House retains, and is seen to retain, its reputation for expertise and integrity. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. I also commend the Government’s decision to introduce a requirement to provide citations for all new appointments to your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friends Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Jackson of Peterborough made very clear, no advisory body is truly neutral and objectivity is hard to achieve. HOLAC is no exception. It offers judgment, not infallibility. Expanding its powers risks creating a system which is neither accountable nor impartial. We must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, especially when it moves further from democratic oversight. The balance that we have is not perfect, but it preserves scrutiny and responsibility in a way that reinforces rather than undermines the legitimacy of this House.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on securing the Second Reading of his Bill. He has shown persistence in pushing forward this issue over the last few years and has led this debate with his customary thought and consideration. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on a wonderful maiden speech. I have known and worked with her for many years and look forward to hearing from her many more times. She will make a great contribution to this House in our deliberations in the years to come.
As we have heard, this Bill would put arrangements for the House of Lords Appointments Commission in statute for the first time. The commission would maintain its role of nominating Cross-Bench Peers to the Prime Minister, but would also be able to set out new criteria against which it should judge and advise on political nominations to your Lordships’ House. This would require the Prime Minister to follow the commission’s advice. The Prime Minister would not be able to recommend Peers to the sovereign where the commission has deemed that they do not meet the suitability criteria. The Bill also stipulates considerations that the Prime Minister must make when recommending new Peers, relating to the size and composition of the House.
A similar Bill received support in this House back in 2022. However, the context this time is different from the context of the noble Lord’s previous Bills on this topic. The Government agree that we need to reform the appointments system and we remain committed to wider House of Lords reform—a pointed raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. We have an ambitious programme of reform for this House, which we have made an immediate start on. When the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said that he wanted to remind me of certain words, I was pleased that they were not my words. However, I do believe that there is a desire for reform across the House. We have made a start in line with our manifesto commitments.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is currently in Committee in this House. It will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and to vote in this place. I recognise the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House over many years—a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Government have committed to reforming the process of appointments to the second Chamber, to ensure the quality of new appointments and improve the national and regional balance of your Lordships’ House. However, this Bill represents a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities of the appointments system. That, as I will outline, risks undermining the proper lines of accountability.
There has been much discussion about the Prime Minister’s role in appointments to this House, so I will first address the roles and responsibilities of the appointments system that the Bill seeks to change. Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, to make recommendations on individuals appointed to this place. By convention, the Prime Minister invites nominations from other political parties, which decide who is best placed to represent their party in the second Chamber. The Prime Minister passes on the nominations of the party leaders without comment, provided that they meet the commission’s propriety checks. This is important. The Prime Minister passes them on to the sovereign without comment.
As my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent made clear in Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill only this week, this is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, and they should be held to account for the political nominations that they make to your Lordships’ House. The House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of individuals nominated to the party Benches in this place. This propriety advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to recommend new life peerages to the sovereign. The commission also has an important role in nominating individuals to the Cross Benches. As with nominations from party leaders, the Prime Minister will pass these on to the sovereign.
The noble Lord’s Bill attempts to put in statute that the commission will judge political nominees not only on their propriety but their suitability, and that the Prime Minister must follow this advice. This would give the commission, an unelected body, the power to veto the Prime Minister’s and the party leaders’ nominations to this place. The noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury and Lord Leigh of Hurley, and other noble Lords, made this point.
As I have set out, it is for party leaders to give due consideration to the quality and suitability of new Peers. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their nominations to this place. We cannot and should not expect the commission to take on this responsibility. In my nearly 15 years in this House, I have made many great friends on all Benches. We have wonderful Members who do great work in this House and did great work before they came to this House. They should be congratulated on that.
This Bill would represent a fundamental shift in the responsibility to make appointments to this House and would risk undermining the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne. The Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also requires that the Prime Minister, in considering recommendations for new peerages, should have regard to the fact that at least 20% of the membership of this place should be non-party political, that no party can have an absolute majority in the House of Lords and that the membership should be no larger than that of the House of Commons. It also gives the commission the ability to advise the Prime Minister on reducing the size of the House.
The House may be sympathetic to these principles that the noble Lord has set out. I note that in recent years no party has held an overall majority in this place. Indeed, since the removal of the majority of the hereditary Peers in 1999, no party has held more than 40% of the seats, nor has the proportion of the Cross-Benchers been below 20% in the Chamber during this time. But the Government share the concern regarding the size of the House: it has become too big. We have committed to reforming your Lordships’ House to achieve a smaller, more active Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. I note that noble Lords made this point, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.
Our manifesto commitments set out how we intend to achieve that, by reforming the process of appointments to this place, as well as by introducing a mandatory retirement age, which will bring down the size of the House, and a participation requirement. As an immediate step in our reform, we have introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which, as I said, will remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place, completing the work of the 1999 Act.
We are in a very different position from when the noble Lord first introduced his Bill. The Government of the day now have a clear manifesto commitment for reforms to this place and we have an ongoing dialogue to consider the options of how we can best implement these commitments. Setting in statute requirements around the size and composition of the House and giving the commission a role on advising on reducing its size would cut across the dialogue on the wider reforms to the House that the Government are proposing.
The Government have already taken the straightforward but important step to help shore up trust in the appointments process, introducing a requirement that political parties must, on nominating individuals, provide a citation explaining why individuals have been nominated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, mentioned. These citations are published on the GOV.UK website following a nominee’s successful appointment, in order to provide greater clarity for the public about how and why party leaders chose their nominations to your Lordships’ House. This will encourage political parties to take greater responsibility for their nominations, which, as I said, are for party leaders to decide and to be held accountable for.
It is right that we should take the time to properly consider how we reform the appointment system and the commission’s role within it as part of the wider standards landscape. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is committed to restoring trust in government. We are committed to keeping the ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections within the existing standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, giving them the ability to initiate an investigation into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, we do not think that this Bill’s proposals are right for the House of Lords Appointments Commission or the wider appointment system at this time.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for raising these important issues and provoking a discussion on reforms to the House of Lords appointments process. We know that there is work to be done to reform this House and we have an ambitious programme to do just that. We are eager to maintain the ongoing dialogue with your Lordships’ House about the reforms to this Chamber. We need to allow time to consider how best to implement our manifesto commitment to reform the appointment system as part of our wider programme of reform. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, so eloquently set out for us during the Committee stage of the Hereditary Peers Bill:
“The sovereign, the King, creates Members of your Lordships’ House. There must be somebody to advise him. It must be a democratically elected person and that has to be the Prime Minister”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 514.]
In the end, the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. The Bill would represent a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities of the appointment system that the Government cannot accept. The Government, therefore, have reservations about the Bill.
Finally, I should say that I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. His contributions to this House are always thoughtful, challenging and considered. His role will help the Government in the further work that we want to bring to this House.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I think that I am in order in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness noted that the public do not trust politicians to tell the truth. Opinion polls show that the public trust professors to tell the truth; I shall therefore speak as a professor.
There have been some excellent speeches. I am especially grateful to those who have added their voice in support of the Bill, which has been the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken. I will deal briefly with those who took a contrary view. My noble friends Lord Sherbourne and Lord Leigh of Hurley may not appear dangerous radicals but, de facto, I am afraid that that is what they are. If we do not make modest change now, much more radical change will come later, and neither of my noble friends advanced alternatives to what I am proposing to deal with the problem that we have identified.
My noble friend Lord Jackson uncharacteristically got one or two things wrong: first, the Bill predates the Johnson premiership, as I explained in my opening speech; and, secondly, Clause 10 is not unprecedented, again as I explained. My noble friend Lady Finn did not explain why the ouster clause will not work in this Bill but apparently will work in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act. I also note that my noble friend did not engage with or come up with any alternatives to the present system, which attracts the criticism that we have heard and has been well adumbrated by Peers in this debate.
The assertion as to the Prime Minister’s accountability for making nominations is built on thin ice. I will not digress on to the point about party leaders being elected: Governments are elected through elections to the House of Commons, while party leaders are elected by their own parties. The point is accountability. I am about to write a chapter on Maundy Gregory for a book on political fixers. His activities led to a change in the law: the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. There is no reason why there should not be a further change in the law and every reason why there should be.
I reiterate the need for reform of the nomination process. We do not exist in a vacuum, although some noble Lords have spoken as if we do. We need to achieve public trust in that process. This Bill is designed to make it clear that we recognise that. As I tell my students, Private Members’ Bills do not normally make it to the statute book. Their value is in raising issues and getting them debated. They help to bring issues on to the political agenda. This debate has achieved that purpose.
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, thank you for being here today for my Private Member’s Bill on the recognition of Palestine. In the light of recent proposals by President Trump and huge global instability, I think that this Bill has become even more vital. The idea that Gaza should be cleared out and its population moved to other countries to become an American riviera is deeply shocking. My Bill would require the Government to recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on pre-1967 lines, just as almost 150 of the 193 UN countries have done. Some say that recognition is merely symbolic, not changing anything on the ground, but recognition has importance—that Palestinians have the right to self-determination, national rights and the legal benefits of that, just like Israelis.
Some say that it is too late: the Swiss cheese effect of Israeli settlements, roads, walls and checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories means that a contiguous Palestinian state is no longer viable. The actions and words of the current Israeli Government seem intent on making it even less likely. Several Israeli Ministers have been clear that they will never accept such an outcome.
Nevertheless, most countries, including the UK, remain committed to a two-state solution. Probably most speakers today, including the Minister, will support this, but if it is to be delivered it becomes urgent to take it forward, lest it becomes impossible, with ramifications both for Palestinians and for the long-term future security of Israel.
Some say that recognition now would be seen as a reward for the Hamas terrorists who carried out the atrocities of 7 October. Absolutely not: this would be the long-overdue recognition of a state for the Palestinian people, not for a particular group. As Sir Vincent Fean, former British consul-general in Jerusalem, has said:
“The voices of moderation on both sides need encouragement”.
They need the hope of a political process. As three Israeli former ambassadors—who, by bravely speaking out, face much opposition—have said,
“recognition would not benefit the Palestinians alone. At this point in time, there can be no greater contribution to peace and security for us Israelis as well”.
Britain, of course, has a special responsibility. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was made here. Balfour spoke of a national homeland for Jewish people in Palestine, but he also spoke about safeguarding the
“civil and religious rights of … non-Jewish communities”.
Israel was recognised in 1948, in the wake of appalling Nazi horrors and centuries of persecution, but no state was established alongside for the displaced Palestinians. This was never likely to be settled and stable, and so it has proved.
We know that Israeli Governments have opposed Palestinian sovereignty and sought to freeze out those countries, most recently Norway and Ireland, that have recognised Palestine. The former ambassadors state:
“Reluctance by key western states to recognise Palestine has fed Israel’s misguided belief that the bestowal of Palestinian independence is its prerogative, to be conferred when the Palestinians meet its requirements”.
But it cannot be the case that an established state should be able to veto the recognition of a neighbour in its own territories. Neither can this be subject to negotiation and conditions.
In 2019, Luxembourg called for the EU to recognise Palestine. Its Foreign Minister said:
“Recognising Palestine as a state would be neither a favour nor a carte blanche, but rather a mere recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to their own state. It would not be meant against Israel”,
but a measure intended to pave the way for a two-state solution.
In 2011, William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary—and now the noble Lord, Lord Hague—stated:
“The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/11; col. 290.]
Palestine was granted observer status at the UN General Assembly in 2012.
In 2014, the Commons voted for recognition, with the Minister’s support. In putting that Motion, Grahame Morris MP argued:
“Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right … As it stands, Israel has little motivation or encouragement … to enter into meaningful negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; col. 64.]
Alan Duncan, as Minister, concluded that recognition was
“the other half of the commitment that our predecessors in this House made as part of the British mandate in the region”.
This was not, he argued, about recognising a particular Government:
“It is states that are recognised, not Governments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; cols. 71-72.]
In 2017, this House’s International Relations Committee stated:
“The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.
It is my party’s position to recognise Palestine. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, as Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, stated repeatedly Labour’s commitment to the two-state solution. Thus, in 2024, he said that we need to
“give hope to that process and move towards recognising a Palestinian state, rather than waiting for the end of the process”.—[Official Report, 5/3/24; col. 1539.]
It is something with which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, appeared to agree in early 2024, until reduced back to the traditional government line. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, noted,
“when the Foreign Secretary made the original statement, he was very clear that we need to show irreversible progress towards a two-state solution … My right honourable friend David Lammy welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s comments, arguing that recognition should not wait for the final status agreement but should be part of efforts to achieve one”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; cols. 148-49.]
The 2024 Labour Party manifesto stated:
“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel”.
So, to my very straightforward Bill. Clause 1 requires the recognition of Palestine
“as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the State of Palestine”.
The wording is taken from UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, specifying in the UN’s own terms what it means to be a recognised state. Clause 1(2) specifies that “pre-1967 borders”
“has the same meaning as in resolution 76/10 (2021) of the UN General Assembly”
and other such resolutions. Clause 2 recognises the mission of Palestine in London as “a full diplomatic mission”. Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within two months of the passage of the Act on steps taken to implement it.
This is all very familiar and all in line with what other countries have done: to recognise Palestine according to the pre-1967 borders, with any change to that to be achieved through negotiation. For those who argue that we cannot recognise a state without settled borders, we recognise Israel, rightly, but Israel itself does not declare its own borders; indeed, it claims the territory of other states. Britain recognised Israel in 1950 without the defining of borders or its capital; it did not wait for the outcome of negotiations.
This is solely a bilateral issue between Britain and Palestine. Labour’s stance in opposition created the hope that it would recognise Palestine, but hope for the Palestinians always seems to be over the horizon.
So if we hear once again that it is not the right time, in effect denying the same rights to self-determination that Israeli citizens have, then I will find myself thinking back, among other things, to a visit I made to Saudi Arabia with other parliamentarians in the mid-2000s. It was a time when the rights of women there were severely curtailed. In a break in our meetings, I went down to the pool in our hotel. “You can’t swim now”, I was told, “It isn’t the ‘woman’s hour’”. “When is the woman’s hour?”, I asked. “There isn’t one”, came the reply.
Recognising two states should have happened long ago. My short little Bill seeks to rectify that. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing forward this Bill and setting out the case so clearly and powerfully. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility going back to the time of the mandate. We have to act upon that. What we have to do now, I believe, is to work for an immediate two-state solution. So many countries have already recognised Palestine: 140 of 193 countries have done so. Sweden, Norway, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia have done it, and I understand that Australia and New Zealand are considering it.
The two-state solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, has long been Labour Party policy. It was in our manifesto. It was supported by the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said:
“We are committed to Palestinian recognition. We hope to work with partners to achieve that, when the circumstances are right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/24; col. 305.]
It is that phrase, “when the circumstances are right”, that has delayed progress up to now. I suggest to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that the circumstances are right at the present time. Within Israel, there is support as well. There is a policy working group that a few days ago wrote to our Prime Minister and the President of France urging immediate recognition. The policy working group consists of senior Israeli academics, former diplomats, policy analysts and human rights defenders.
The tragedy of 7 October in Israel and the thousands of deaths in Gaza surely demand a new way forward for all the people in the region. I firmly believe that there can be no security for the people of Israel until the Palestinians also have their own state. There would have to be international guarantees to ensure the safety and security of both states, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. I am afraid that the United States’ plan for Gaza is not only nonsensical but is setting the clock back. It has no acceptance in the region. Anyway, why should adjacent countries support thousands of Palestinians who would then be forcibly removed? It does not make sense. The Palestinians have the right to their own territory, and the Americans should recognise that.
Earlier this month, there was an emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo dealing with the post-war reconstruction of Gaza. The President of Egypt said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the only path to “genuine peace”. It is notable that both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have welcomed these proposals. The only comment I would make is that I hope the Government will not wait for the passage of the Bill. We can act immediately.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is always so courteous and so clear in what he says. I am afraid I disagree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the Bill that she has introduced, and briefly I will explain why.
I think we have to look at the situation on the ground. Israel has been fighting for 18 months now. It is much the longest war it is ever been involved in. It involves not just Gaza, but Lebanon, Syria and even Yemen and Iran. It is imposed huge strains on Israeli society, and there is no end in sight to it. So it is not surprising that Israelis are sceptical about the land for peace concept, and it has failed as a concept, most obviously in Gaza. Indeed, only about a quarter of Israelis now support a two-state solution. Equally importantly, as a PSR poll last autumn showed, only 39% of Palestinians support a two-state solution. This means that a two-state solution seems very unlikely to happen.
That is the context in which we must consider this proposal to require HMG to recognise Palestine as
“a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders”.
The only problem is that no such state exists on the ground. There are no agreed borders or territory, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out. That is not the only relevant criterion. Palestinians have very limited control of the territory, for good security reasons. There is no real ability to engage in interaction with other states. They have institutions that are riddled with anti-Semitism and corruption and simply cannot govern. There simply is nothing approximating to a state, which is important because that is the basis for UK recognition of states.
In these circumstances, what is the point of the recognition of Palestine? At best, it is acknowledgement of the concept of a state for a state that does not exist; at worst, it is just a form of international virtue signalling, or even a statement to Israel that we will reward in some way the Palestinians for the chaos and violence of 7 October.
I think the Government are being sensible in saying that recognition can come only as part of a process that is working and in which they can help. I am tempted to think that that is just another way of saying that it is never going to happen, but the problem is that for as long as recognition is a theoretical possibility, it encourages the international community to keep engaging with the phantasm rather than dealing with the real situation. This country should deal with reality as it is, rather than wishing for things that are not going to happen, and that is in our interest. That means backing Israel to do what is necessary for its security to support a realistic and achievable solution to the grievous problems that beset Israelis and Palestinians, which I strongly suspect is not going to involve a two-state solution in the near future, and stopping pretending that gesture politics by those with no skin in the game can help in any way in this. That is why I oppose the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking to give strong support to the Second Reading of the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on Palestinian statehood. Why is that so? It is because without recognition of that statehood as part of what has come to be known as a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute, there will be no lasting peace, justice or prosperity for the countries of the Middle East, and for any interim solution, such as currently under negotiation over Gaza, to prosper, there has to be a horizon of a long-term solution, which I argue is a two-state one, however far away that horizon may be. As for what is sometimes known as “thinking outside the box”, such as Trump’s riviera ideas, they are simply illegal, immoral and impractical. They have no supporters in the region apart from the Netanyahu Government in Israel.
For many years as a loyal British diplomat, I defended the idea that the recognition of Palestinian statehood could come only at the end of a process that settled by negotiation the vexed issues of territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem. So long as Yitzhak Rabin lived, that was a realistic prospect, but he was assassinated for supporting a two-state solution. Since then, the idea of holding back the recognition of Palestinian statehood has become a mirage abandoned by an increasing number of countries around the world, some of them our fellow European democracies. Our Government seem to some extent to have moved down that road too, since they now talk of the recognition of Palestinian statehood at some undefined point during two-state negotiations. However, that step is now in limbo thanks to the refusal of the Israeli Government to contemplate any negotiations for a two-state solution, although I salute those brave Israelis who have this week put their names to a position that is more favourable to a two-state solution.
What sequencing of decision-making, which does not consist simply of the recognition of Palestinian statehood, but goes beyond it to achieve the recognition of Israel’s statehood by every Arab country in the Middle East, could be contemplated and have some chance over time of being achieved? It could be realised by an international conference bringing together all the Arab countries of the region and a wider range of world powers to relaunch two-state negotiations. At that conference, all participants would recognise the statehood of all others, thus bringing about Israel’s recognition of Palestine and Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel—to mention the most prominent lacunae in the present arrangements. Negotiations on territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem would then resume, but within the irreversible framework of two states.
The present Bill could help to make that possible without transgressing the unacceptability of giving any governmental or security role to Hamas following its horrendous breaches of international humanitarian law in October 2023 and since; nor would it contain any trace of anti-Semitism since it would treat all states of the region on an equal basis. I hope that with arrangements such as that in mind this Bill could be given an unopposed Second Reading, and I would like the Minister to address the route that I have suggested we might move towards when she replies to the debate.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a patron of the charity Embrace the Middle East. I am also a regular visitor to the region and last visited in June, spending time particularly in the West Bank. As Palestinians shared stories from the past and the present. I was really struck by the absence of hope, the absence of a vision for the future and the focus on simply trying to survive the present.
It is poignant that today is the Jewish festival of Purim, wonderfully marking the saving of the Jewish people from annihilation. It is a stark reminder that all people are equal and, I would add, created in the image of God.
We must go on naming the abhorrent attack on Israel by Hamas. We remember all those who grieve and live with trauma, and of course those who continue to be held hostage and must be released. At the same time, we must not become dull to the horrors of the war in Gaza. All people are equal.
For Palestinians in the West Bank, their present is about surviving the intensification of military activity, increased house demolition, road blockages and massive inflation and poverty levels, along with the collapse of basic services. Even in conversation with Christians, who would usually speak of hope, there was a palpable sense of a struggle to contemplate what an earthly good future might look like, not least amid a sense of being abandoned by international leaders and indeed the majority of the worldwide Church. A well-known Christian pastor from Bethlehem commented to me that he no longer used the word “hope” except to reference Easter.
As other noble Lords have noted, the Government seem wedded to recognising a Palestinian state only as a contribution to a renewed peace process. However, there is an absence of such a process and no prospect of negotiations any time soon, so the diplomatic stance simply reinforces to Palestinians that their future is one of survival. We must speak of hope. Recognition of Palestinian statehood should not be contingent on non-existent negotiations. It is vital to acknowledge the equal rights of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, demonstrating parity of esteem for both.
We have an American President who speaks of forcibly transferring millions of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza. In Israel, there is no major political party arguing in favour of negotiations to end the occupation. The festival of Purim celebrates courageous leadership, and a decision by this Government on Palestinian statehood would send a clear signal to the Palestinian people that they could hope for a better future and that they were recognised and supported by this country, as are the people of Israel. Given Britain’s own troubling history on this matter, the UK carries a responsibility to the Palestinian people to speak and act for an independent, sovereign Palestine at peace with its neighbours. Recognition is a vital step that must be taken now.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Yachad Ltd, a British Jewish organisation supporting a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a proud progressive Zionist, I believe in the right of Jewish people to national self-determination and that Palestinians have the same right. We all, I hope, share the Government’s policy of a two-state solution. We need to be a strong advocate for that in the region, because too many people there, on both sides of the conflict, now talk only of a one-state solution.
Given the facts on the ground and the legacy of Hamas’s terrorist pogrom on 7 October, together with everything that has followed, I fear it is simply wishful thinking to say that immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, which the Bill advances, would advance the peace process. It might feel like the right thing to do, or indeed a wise diplomatic signal to send, and it might win praise here in the UK, but would it advance peace in the region? Experience of unilateral action suggests not. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, last year Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised Palestine as a state. Israel recalled its ambassadors to those countries in response. I fear that if we followed those examples then our long-standing locus, through both history and international standing, would be severely impaired—and if that was not true before President Trump’s election then I fear it certainly is now.
Recognition is a card that you can play only once. Timing is everything. As the Oslo accords state, any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. Only through such engagement and mutual agreement, which Britain can and must support, will we deliver lasting peace. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, alluded to, this requires fundamental change on both sides. First, it seems otiose, as others have said, to point out that Hamas simply can never be a partner for peace. But there are also progressive forces in mainstream Israeli politics that are thinking productively as to how best to move forward towards peace from this fragile ceasefire. Yair Golan MK, who is leader of the Democrats—Labor’s sister political party, formed out of Avodah and Meretz—a retired major-general in the IDF and an absolute hero of 7 October, is clear-eyed in his view of the Israeli Prime Minister’s current policy of strengthening Hamas to weaken the PA. Writing in Haaretz on 26 February, Golan said:
“The simple truth is that Hamas has survived thanks to Netanyahu and Netanyahu has survived thanks to Hamas”.
He argues that the regional struggle is not about territory so much as one of moderate forces that want stability and prosperity versus extremist forces that want anarchy and terror. Israel should lead that moderate alliance. The UK should urge that moderation on Israel. Would we have the agency to do so if we unilaterally declared Palestinian statehood?
Golan outlines a three-stage progress process towards peace. Time prevents me going into detail, as it prevents me talking about Yair Lapid’s credible alternative, called the Egyptian solution. These are not the awful plans we have heard from President Trump, those shocking pipe dreams for Gaza, but neither are they a counsel of despair. They hold out the prospect of statehood at the right time—not at the end, but not now.
I will conclude by reporting a conversation with a high-ranking official in the Democrats. He asked me to make it clear in this debate that there are indeed Members of the Knesset who have the strong desire to push forward for peace, spearheaded by his party. Because of that, not despite it, my left-wing peacenik friend said that recognition would be a “huge failure of British foreign policy, making the UK totally irrelevant”. We should listen to our partners for peace when they ask us not to do something.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill and on her powerful introduction, and I am delighted to support her. In doing so, I declare my interests as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and president of the Palestine Britain Business Council.
As we have heard, the history of the United Kingdom and the Palestinian territories is deeply entwined. Through that shared history, we have a special responsibility to the Palestinian people, and we should discharge that responsibility, which is long overdue, by the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state alongside the sovereign State of Israel. That is because we cannot champion the rights of others around the world, supporting them in their stand for freedom and self-determination, and then deny those same rights to the Palestinian people. Recognition should be the first step in the process, not the last. Despite all that has happened since we missed the opportunity to recognise Palestine in 2011, it remains the only step that leads to genuine peace and prosperity and a stable and secure future for both Palestine and Israel.
This is not an either/or situation. Contrary to what some might wish for, the Palestinians and the Israelis are not going anywhere, so we have to find a way forward. The Palestinians are not asking for anything extraordinary. None of those whom I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting and working with over many years—it is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that the majority of Palestinians are ordinary people, just like you and me, from the young girls in a refugee camp in Gaza debating rights and responsibilities in such a thoughtful and engaging manner that if you closed your eyes you could have been in any classroom in the West, to the entrepreneurial men and women running remarkable businesses but hampered by the problems of occupation, to the farmers tending their animals and harvesting their olives and dates against a background of settler violence, to the courageous medics who are not just treating today’s physical and mental injuries but still treating the wounds, scars and amputations of injuries incurred over many years, to the students, academics, musicians and those who play sports who just want to travel without asking permission of Israel, which is often denied—are asking for anything extraordinary. They are simply asking to be able to enjoy the freedoms and life experience that we all cherish and often take for granted.
Much of what I have said repeats the words I have used in your Lordships’ House over many years. It is dispiriting and beyond tragic given the horrors of the past 18 months in Israel and Gaza that they still need to be said. I hope the Minister, whom I hold in the highest regard, will support the Bill. If that is not the case, please can she explain the timetable for the Government’s manifesto commitment to recognise Palestine? The only silver lining for me in losing the general election was the thought of the Palestinian people being given not just their rightful recognition but the hope they so desperately need to ensure a peaceful future for all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. Britain’s historical role in the plight of the Palestinians is undeniable. The 1917 Balfour Declaration divided Palestine, carving from within it a national home for the Jewish people, with the caveat of
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
That did not work out too well.
More than a century has passed since the declaration, during which time more and more land has been taken forcibly from the Palestinian people and atrocious violations of civil and human rights have been heaped upon them. They are unquantifiable in scale, so large are the numbers, and immeasurable in their impacts on the physical and mental health and well-being of Palestinian men, women and children. The occupying Israeli forces have used collective punishment to subjugate the civilian population. Collective punishment is a war crime the under the Geneva convention.
Witness the situation in Gaza today, where all humanitarian aid remains blocked by Israel and electricity has been cut off. The arbitrary detention of men, women and children has been commonplace—illegal under national law. There has been the forced displacement of people—illegal under international law.
Some noble Lords who contribute to today’s debate may not agree that Israel is guilty of heinous human rights abuses. Israel can put those allegations to bed immediately by allowing independent journalists and observers into Gaza and ceasing its violations of press freedoms in the West Bank. It is a fact that independent human rights investigators, fact-finding missions and the International Criminal Court still do not have access to Gaza.
Statehood for Palestine is long overdue. Britain has a special responsibility to put right its actions of the last century and undo the damage of the Balfour Declaration. It cannot be right that, of the 146 countries that recognise Palestine, Britain is not of that number. There is no justification for withholding from the Palestinian people their right to recognition as a viable state and the hope that goes with it.
I support the Bill and its commitment to international law and to the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognised pre-1967 borders. I hope the Government and others will do the same.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In the very brief time available to me, I wish to concentrate on one of the major obstacles to a two-state solution: the massive Israeli settlement enterprise in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Today, the settler population of the illegally occupied West Bank—that includes east Jerusalem—numbers around 750,000 people. Back in 1993 when the Oslo accords were signed, when we dreamed of a two-state solution, the number of settlers was 250,000. Their numbers have trebled. The intention of the Israeli Finance Minister, himself a settler, is to increase those numbers to over a million. All these settlers have the full rights of Israeli citizenship. They live under Israeli civil law, unlike their Palestinian neighbours, who live under Israeli military law—two peoples in the same territory but under a discriminatory legal system.
I hope that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will outline the Government’s position on any further Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Will she also confirm that the Government expect Israel to adhere to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478, of which it is in gross breach? These do not just condemn the annexation but insist that all such Israeli measures are null and void and must be rescinded.
In all, there are now nearly 300 illegal settlements in the West Bank—every one illegal, every one an obstacle to peace. During what was meant to be a ceasefire, Israel has mounted a massive military operation in the northern West Bank, starting two days after signing the ceasefire deal, using tanks in cities for the first time in 20 years and forcibly displacing 40,000 Palestinians. This is not the only example of forced displacement outside of Gaza, where 90% of the population has been forcibly displaced over the last 18 months. Israeli settler violence, aided and abetted by the Israeli army, has targeted Palestinian communities in area C, and now increasingly in area B, of the West Bank. This is forced displacement, where violence has been deployed to force these communities into the cities, so that settlers can steal even more land in occupied territory.
Israeli settlers know that they will not be arrested, let alone imprisoned. The culture of impunity that they enjoy, sadly, is akin to the impunity that Israel enjoys internationally. Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes and structures is just another tool to force Palestinians out of areas. Since 19 January 2025, the UN figures estimate that 211 structures have been destroyed during this 37-day period alone.
The legal position of the occupation is now clear, as the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, made clear last July. It stipulated that the Israeli occupation was illegal and a violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination and that Israel must bring the occupation to an end.
Recognising a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, on the territory that Israel illegally occupies, would demonstrate that the Government are committed equal-handedly to international law, are committed to a two-state solution and committed to Palestinian self- determination.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the recognition of the Palestinian state. I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as a director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
For years Palestinians have been looking aghast at British policy and its hesitancy to recognise an independent state of Palestine. I empathise with that view. “If not now, when?”, they ask. How long do Palestinians have to wait? It is sad that we are still having this debate, as recognition should have happened years ago.
Back in 2014, I spoke in the debate in the other place and voted for the recognition of Palestine when it was passed by that House overwhelmingly. I want to challenge some of the arguments made against recognition. We do not have to recognise the state of Palestine with borders. There are plenty of examples where we have recognised states with territorial disputes, and rightly so—not least Israel, a state that has not declared its borders and in fact keeps expanding, but it is absolutely right that we recognise it.
We do not need to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and we will not have to recognise Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. All of this should be decided in negotiations towards peace. But recognising a state of Palestine, as we recognised the State of Israel, should not be up for negotiation. It is in the gift of the British Government, and it is for the British Government to decide. The British Government have, for decades, since 1980, supported a two-state solution. The Government need to move beyond the slogan of a two-state solution, which I know they wholeheartedly believe in, to a situation of actively bringing this about; otherwise, they risk not being seen as credible on this issue.
Some point out that the Palestinian Authority is weak, and many think that it is corrupt, but recognition is not an endorsement of any Government, nor should it be—it is a recognition of a right of the people. For example, we recognise Iran but do not approve of its regime. The nature of the Palestinian Authority is immaterial to this issue.
Some argue that Israel will react by freezing out contacts with Britain, as it did with Sweden and Ireland, but I would ask whether we should be bullied by another state. We should stand up to bullies on a matter of principle. I believe that, currently, crimes against humanity are being committed in Gaza, where Israel has reimposed a complete blockade on a captive civilian population of some 2.3 million Palestinians. That is a form of collective punishment, and it needs to be called out by our Government.
Britain can and should recognise the state of Palestine and push for European allies to do likewise. Perhaps the French-Saudi Middle East peace conference in June is an opportunity to do this. We can do more; we can get behind the Arab plan as agreed in Cairo. The Arab reconstruction plan included a restatement of the Arab peace plan. It has the backing of all 22 Arab states, plus the support of the organisation of the Islamic conference of nations. That is 56 states in total. In my view, it is the bones of a plan that can bring peace to the Palestinian and Israeli people, which is, I believe, what we all want. Will the Government welcome it?
The Arab plan is for a two-state solution, to which the UK subscribes. The Israeli plan is for a one-state solution in which there is no Palestinian right of self-determination, no Palestinian state and no peace. The British Government need to recognise the state of Palestine, support the Arab plan in Cairo and take a leadership role in moving this situation forward.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
I respectfully advise noble Lords that the speaking time for this debate is three minutes.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on introducing this Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. It is right to recognise Palestine as a state—just not right now. That is the mantra we have heard for over 50 years. The main argument has always been that recognition should be part of a wider peace process; a peace and a process that, sadly, has failed to materialise.
Tragically, as we have failed to recognise Palestine, methodically and, I would argue, deliberately, the probability of Palestine existing as a state has been diminished. Each time we have failed, more Palestinian land has been occupied, more Palestinians have been displaced, more homes have been demolished and another generation of Palestinians have lived without the dignity of freedom. At a time when Netanyahu and Gallant find themselves wanted under arrest warrants issued by the ICC and Israel finds itself before the ICJ accused of plausible genocide; at a time when the lifeline of UNRWA has been slashed; when in Gaza, over the past 18 months, nearly 18,000 children have been killed, 70% of all homes have been destroyed and hospitals, schools, universities, libraries, churches and mosques erased; at a time when, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, settler violence is unashamedly unchecked and Israeli military personnel have livestreamed their own human rights abuses; at a time when senior members of this Israeli regime make no secret of their absolute dismissal of a Palestinian state; and when the denial of Palestine, Palestinians and even the basic humanity of the people from those lands is now mainstream, the urgency to recognise has never been so acute.
One hundred and forty-six countries recognise Palestine—more than 75% of the world—most recently, Ireland, Norway and Spain. They recognise, as should we, that recognition is a basic backstop position that we all urgently need to adopt. By recognising, we do that essential act of preserving at the very least the idea of a Palestinian state. We must muster the political will and moral courage to do so, and we have that opportunity today to stop being an outlier on this issue and choose to be on the right side of history.
I and others in this House have rightly condemned those who have argued against the right for Israel to exist as a state. Today at the very least we should be equally vociferous against those who, either through their words or through their actions, fail to condemn or curtail those who do not believe in the right of Palestine to exist as a state.
I urge this House to come together to support this Bill and to say that we recognise Palestine and the dignity of its people, the suffering of its children and the sacrifice of its multiple generations, and their humanity and right to live on their land, and to be free in a safe, secure and sustainable Palestine; and to prove that our policy of two states is not just words but a fundamental belief by recognising that second state, a state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, in line with UK policy, UK interests, UK public opinion and UK values.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I, too, rise in support of my noble friend Lady Northover and her Bill on the recognition of a Palestinian state. As of 28 May 2024, the state of Palestine was recognised by 146 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. The Bill requires the UK Government to formally recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state. It would send a powerful signal that the UK supports both the State of Israel and the state of Palestine entering peace negotiations on an equal footing, and demonstrate our commitment to the two-state solution and peace and security for both nations.
The illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank since 1967 is the longest military occupation in history. The Palestinian people continue, under occupation, to be deprived of the civil and human rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens. ICJ rulings have recognised the illegality of this occupation and called for Israel to end it. Those who seek to bring peace and security to the region know that this will certainly not be achieved through the brutal subjugation of 5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Extremist settlers, many in the Government, will not achieve peace and security by savagely driving out Palestinians from the West Bank and destroying their homes.
Since the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, at least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied West Bank have been recorded. There is impunity for the perpetrators. Since 2005, only 3% of investigations into ideologically motivated crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank have led to a full or partial conviction. The repeated, sustained bombardments and destruction of Gaza have deprived generations of Palestinians of family members, homes, healthcare, food and shelter, with vital aid still being denied and blocked. We all deplore the atrocities of Hamas on 7 October and call for all the hostages to be released immediately, but the disproportionate retribution that has resulted in more than 60,000 people in Gaza being killed, including large numbers of civilians, women and children, has sickened the world.
By immediately recognising the state of Palestine, the UK is standing in solidarity with other UN members and against the grotesque Trump plans for ethnic cleansing, but recognition is not enough. We must work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to a future of co-existence and mutual security. As other noble Lords have said, we must seize the moment and take a stand to work for peace, justice and security for both states through the two-state solution.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can I offer a legal perspective? In international law, a state exists only if four criteria are met. These were set out in the Montevideo convention of 1933 and it seems highly doubtful that Palestine satisfies any of these criteria at the moment.
First, a state must have a defined territory. This Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to recognise a state of Palestine on the basis of pre-1967 borders, but there is plainly no existing Palestinian control within those borders. This is wishful thinking. It is a fantasy. It is not the recognition of an existing territory. A defined territory depends on a peace settlement with Israel.
Secondly, a state must have a permanent population. According to UNRWA, around 2.5 million of the 5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza are refugees. I cannot understand how Palestine can claim to have a permanent population when half the people living there are waiting to live in another state, in Israel.
Thirdly, a state needs a Government who exercise effective control of the territory. But the Palestinian Authority operates in the West Bank and Hamas claims to govern Gaza. A Government of a state must govern the whole state.
Fourthly, the Government of a state must have independence, but the Palestinian Authority currently enjoys very limited powers because of Israeli control. Israel has that control for good security reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, pointed out.
I make it clear that all of this does need to change. I would welcome the existence of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination. But this will happen only when Palestinian leaders accept the political reality that Israel exists as the homeland of the Jewish people.
I was very grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out that today is the Jewish festival of Purim. We celebrate our victory over Haman, the chief minister to the King of Persia who wished to annihilate the Jewish community over 2,000 years ago. Fortunately, the King of Persia had a Jewish wife—I can confirm that they are often a formidable presence—and he sided with her and Haman was hanged. As with most Jewish festivals, the basic principle is very simple: “They tried to kill us; they failed; let’s eat”. All of this is sadly material to today’s debate, because progress towards the achievement of a state of Palestine is being held up by modern Hamans—lots of them—in the Palestinian community, whose primary objectives remain to kill Jews and to destroy the State of Israel.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share the desire for peace of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and so many other noble Lords who have spoken today, and have always hoped for a two-state solution. The only party which has never accepted the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is the Palestinians themselves. Israel was attacked by its neighbours right from the word go, and has been attacked again and again ever since, with the intent to wipe the Jewish state off the map. Israel has offered peace. It has given up land for peace. It still seeks peace—but with whom?
As the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said, timing is everything. At this moment, a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders is a fantasy, especially given the realities of the last few decades. Doing this now would be a reward for the jihadis, Islamists and extremist leaders of the Palestinians in Gaza, and their masters in Iran. They do not accept any borders; they want Israel from the river to the sea.
Those who chant the slogan on our streets every week are effectively calling for no two-state solution; they are calling for Israel to be eradicated. Also, in practice, the pre-1967 borders—originally accepted by Israel, of course—proved an unsustainable geographical dividing line, leaving Israel completely vulnerable to invasion and annihilation. Has the Minister been to the Golan Heights, for example, to see the complete overlooking of Israeli towns, leaving them wide open to murderous attack?
If the intention is to satisfy Palestinian demands for statehood, which I truly wish were possible, can the Minister—or other noble Lords—point to any evidence of their willingness to live in peace next to a Jewish state? If none is given today, perhaps the Minister would write to me: I would be grateful.
Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map; nothing less would suffice. Both the Palestinian authority and Hamas reward their citizens for murdering and attacking Jews. They teach their children to want to kill them and that Israel has no right to exist. A Palestinian state will turn out the same as the post-2006 unoccupied Gaza. Israel withdrew unilaterally, dismantled the Jewish settlements established there, and what happened? The Palestinian leadership spent billions on building tunnels from which to attack and kill Israelis. Intifadas and suicide bombers killed Israelis.
They spent years preparing for 7 October: to torture, rape, kill and kidnap Israelis. They particularly targeted Israelis like me, who most wanted to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours and who had spent their lives helping Palestinians, ferrying them to Israeli hospitals for treatment, employing them in their homes and engaging with them as friends and neighbours. The very people who wanted a two-state solution have now started to lose faith in it. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the absence of a peace process, but peace is not a solo. If one side does not seek peace, we would just be repeating past failures.
This Bill, if passed, would be a licence for further terrorism, I am afraid. It would be a signal that deliberately torturing and murdering Jews, promising to do it again and again, then hiding safely in tunnels under or behind your own civilians and knowingly, cynically, inviting retaliation from those you have attacked, will bring rewards from civilised countries whose emotions you have deliberately manipulated.
I know the noble Baroness wants to see peace—so do I—but I fear that this Bill will take us further away from that goal.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. The idea of a Palestinian state did not enter into public debate for very many years after the early discussions of a Jewish state. The First World War and the pogroms led to the Balfour Declaration being made by a British Minister, which favoured a national home for the Jewish people. It sought to protect the rights of the indigenous non-Jews, as has happened, but no such offer was made to create a Palestinian state. It was, in fact, after the murder of 6 million Jews in Europe and the defeat of Nazism that an offer was made in 1948 in Resolution 181 to effectively have a two-state solution. The Israelis accepted it, but the Arabs rejected it immediately and commenced a war on the fledgling state. Since then, peace processes have come and gone and, in each case, the representative bodies of the Palestinians refused to accept the offer that was made to them.
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered a deal whereby 95% of the land claimed would be given, including East Jerusalem. An international jurisdiction of the Old City was offered—and, again, rejected by Abbas. Finally, the Arab world became impatient with this approach and the Abraham accords inched closer to many of them recognising Israel. As we know, it was the fear of their allies recognising Israel and seeking a harmonious Middle East—which we all seek—that prompted Hamas to carry out the events of 7 October.
In my work on coexistence—I am chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in the UK—I have been in dialogue with those living in East Jerusalem. They specifically tell me they do not want to live in a state controlled by people who would carry out such atrocities on innocent people, as has happened, or by those who have rejected viable peace offers in the past.
Frankly, it is hugely insensitive and somewhat naive to bring this Bill to our Parliament at this time, when Israel has only recently received back some of those innocent hostages, who were tortured mentally and physically. They were hung upside-down, put in cages, starved, told lies about their families and ignored by the utterly useless Red Cross. In effect, this Bill wants to reward the perpetrators. Every poll shows that Hamas would be in power if there were elections. Indeed, there were people who rejoiced with glee as they heard of babies being decapitated and killed in front of their parents. Others were burned alive and innocents were raped.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, the criteria for statehood under international law are clear, and for good reason. Statehood is not simply a prize but a set of responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority falls short of many of those requirements. Most significantly, it falls short of the critical requirement of effective government, both in the West Bank, where its authority is limited and ineffective, and all the more so in the Gaza Strip, which is run, in practice, by the gun-carrying, terrorist organisation Hamas.
This Bill will not help bring democracy to a Government in their 19th year of a four-year term. It will not strengthen law enforcement in a system that continues with its heinous policy of “pay to slay”, financially rewarding terrorists for their atrocities. It will not help replace a school system riddled with indoctrination to violence with one that promotes excellence rather than martyrdom.
Finally, there is a much more basic problem with the Bill, in Clause 2(2). The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is given effect in UK law through the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and sets out relations between diplomatic missions and receiving states. The convention states that the head of the mission is considered as having taken up his functions in the receiving state when he has presented his credentials. In the UK, uniquely, credentials are presented to the monarch and heads of the mission are accredited to the Court of St James. Do the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the Minister seriously advocate that the King receive, at the Court of St James, as this Bill envisages, a person from Hamas, who every person in this world would recognise as a terrorist? This is not the time to consider such a state. Frankly, I find it deeply upsetting that such a Bill can even be raised in our House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly suggest that noble Lords wind up after the clock hits two minutes, because we are in danger of running into the day’s other business. I advise noble Lords to keep to the advisory time of three minutes.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for this important debate.
As recently as July last year, our Secretary of State, David Lammy, stated:
“We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a peace process, at a time that is most conducive to that process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/7/24; col. 1150.]
I ask an obvious question: if not now, when? When will this “most conducive” time arrive? What precisely is the United Kingdom waiting for before extending formal recognition to the state of Palestine? The people of Palestine have waited long and painfully. We have heard assurances, but we want to see action. Parliamentarians have voted for this, and I am sure they will vote for it again.
I urge this House for a number of reasons. There cannot be peace in the Middle East without a two-state solution. Whatever was said just now, people on both sides are suffering the pain of what has taken place over the last couple of years. You cannot have a two-state solution without a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine is not something we should do at the end of a set of peace talks. It is what we need to do to get those talks started. It levels the playing field, and any of us who have ever been involved in mediations know how important that is. It gives the peace process a real chance. It is a catalyst for peace talks rather than an obstacle to them. It provides a clear framework for negotiations, acknowledging that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights and aspirations.
Recognising Palestine sends a clear message that we support the people on both sides who want peace. It strengthens the voices of moderates in Israel and Palestine, and it sends a clear message against further Israeli plans to annex the West Bank. It would really send a message about the idea of expelling Palestinians from Gaza or the creation of a grand holiday resort, built on the bones of the many who lie still dead under the rubble—to lie your towel out on the sands still soaked in the blood of women and children. Is it any wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, used the words “illegal, immoral and impractical” to describe the horror that sent through so many people in the world? To see Netanyahu smiling at the suggestion by President Trump was shocking. What we are talking about here is forced displacement, which is a crime in international law.
I just want to counter the legal opinion that has been given to your Lordships on what defines statehood. No court would acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said when all those criteria have been prevented—indeed, by Israel. That is the point. Why are there refugees? Let me just give your Lordships a quote—I am sorry about the time, but I want to put this before the House:
“In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: ‘Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy—to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank’”.
That was to counter the very criteria that we were talking about.
I have been to Israel many times and have many friends there. I visited Jerusalem back in March 1999, and I met Leah Rabin. She took my hands, and I was paying tribute to her husband and the sadness I felt about his death and his assassination, when she said, “Netanyahu killed my husband”. I frowned and thought, “What does she mean?”. She said, “The night before my husband was killed, Netanyahu led a demonstration in which there was behind him a coffin with my husband’s name written out on the top of it. It was an incitement to extremist settlers”. The settlements themselves have prevented peace in that part of the world. It is said that we would be compensating Hamas; we are compensating breaches of international law by not recognising the state of Palestine.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although I share the concerns that some have expressed about the statements that have been coming from Washington recently, I cannot support the Bill for at least three reasons.
First, the recognition of states is an exclusive Crown prerogative. Parliament can legislate in any matter and can limit the prerogative, but it is constitutionally a very bad idea for it to do so. When Parliament stepped in and tried to run foreign policy in the past, the result was not usually a success—for example, in 2017 and 2018, when it was not clear whether it was Parliament or the Government running the negotiations with the EU. We are going through particularly testing times. This is not the time—if it ever was—for Parliament to dictate the content and timing of a sensitive step in foreign affairs on the Government.
Secondly, by forcing the Government to recognise the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 boundaries, the Bill would disincentivise the Palestinians from compromising, and without compromise there cannot be peace. I echo in this respect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on territory as a requirement for statehood under the Montevideo convention. It would be ironic for Britain now to proclaim that the pre-1967 borders were always the unequivocal and definitive borders of Palestine, given that Britain was one of the few countries that recognised, back in 1950, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, except for Jerusalem.
The third reason is that recognising Palestine in the current circumstances would reward Hamas. True, we would be recognising the state and not any Government; the policy of officially recognising Governments was stopped by Lord Carrington in 1980. But in this case, the distinction would be somewhat artificial. The fact is that recognition of a new state is a gift to whoever is in power at that point. There are two Palestinian entities that exercise governmental control in the Palestinian territories: the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. All evidence suggests that Hamas is by far the more popular of the two, and it would almost certainly end up being in complete control of the Palestinian state.
Some believe that support for Hamas would wane if we in the West showed greater support for the Palestinian cause, including through recognition. I disagree. I cannot think of many international causes that have received as much support and attention in the West as the Palestinian cause, yet I can see no evidence of such support and attention being rewarded with greater moderation. At this point, Palestinian support for Hamas is a social and political fact; it is a regrettable and truly tragic fact but one that we cannot wish away. Things may change in future but we are not the ones who can make that change happen. We barely know how to change our own society. We must dispense with the illusion that we can change other people’s societies.
Even if every country in the world unconditionally recognised Palestine as a state tomorrow, the consequence would not be Hamas giving way to a moderate Palestinian faction. What would happen is that Hamas would gain an internationally recognised state. In those circumstances, recognition would not help solve the conflict but escalate it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on getting her Bill to this stage. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for signalling opposition to the Balfour Declaration, on the basis of which the State of Israel was founded.
We learned recently that the Americans have been talking directly to Hamas. I wonder: has the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, managed to make contact with Hamas and get its take on the two-state solution? Has she spoken to Khalil al-Hayya, who only a few weeks ago described the 7 October massacre as
“a source of pride for our people … and it will be passed down from generation to generation”?
Has she spoken to Ghazi Hamad, who said this barely a fortnight after the massacre:
“We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated … We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe … and must be finished”?
It is clear where Hamas stands on a two-state solution: it rejects it, as we have already heard. Indeed, its barbaric actions on 7 October and statements since provide incontrovertible proof, if any were needed, that it has not only vetoed that solution in effect but set back the cause and the realistic possibility of Palestinian nationhood for generations, if not for ever.
I finish with a simple question: how could anyone not want peace for the people of Gaza, the West Bank and Israel? Hamas answered that question on 7 October 2023. It does not want peace, and it most certainly does not want a two-state solution. However much we would like to do so, we cannot ignore the fact that it is Hamas that has, in word and deed, done more than anyone to destroy the two-state premise on which this Bill is based.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when moving a similar Bill in the other place two years ago, my friend Layla Moran, whom I greatly admire as an MP and respect as a self-described daughter of Palestine but also friend of Israel, asked the Government to recognise the state of Palestine without any preconditions. As the vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, though speaking in a personal capacity, I completely understand her frustration and her motivation, which I think are shared by my noble friend Lady Northover today.
I thoroughly support the creation of a state of Palestine and I agree with my noble friend that Israel needs it too. The problem with recognition now is that, as a unilateral gesture it risks being not a practical and realistic solution but a dead end, a brick wall, even increasing the frustration of Palestinians rather than increasing hope. It would not obviate the painful compromises that have to be made in bilateral negotiations by competent Governments with international support.
Obstacles often cited to the creation of two states are the existence of hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank and the demand that, as well as the many Arab Palestinian Israelis who are Israeli citizens, many more Palestinians should be allowed to return to what is now the State of Israel. In that context, I was pleased to be invited to attend a presentation a few days ago by May Pundak and Dr Rula Hardal, leaders of an organisation of Israelis and Palestinians called A Land for All. I thank Sir Richard Branson and his not-for-profit foundation Virgin Unite for sponsoring that event.
A Land for All has a very different take from the usual one on the route towards peace, security and stability for all. Of course, it envisages two independent states, Israel and Palestine, with a border on the green line, but it proposes what it calls a joint framework, allowing both peoples to live together and apart. It points out that when Palestinians refer to “Palestine”, it is to the entire area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean—we are familiar with this recently—just as for Israelis, “Eretz Israel” refers to the same space, and that no international borders could change these connections to the homeland, and this identity. It proposes that the political solution must reflect the emotional reality and create a framework that allows members of both nations to travel and live throughout the shared homeland on the basis of political separation, yes; geographic and demographic separation, no. It wants both states to be committed to the vision of an open land, where citizens of both countries have the right to travel, work and, over time and with limitations, reside, though not get citizenship in both states.
That is a very tall order. Freedom of movement has been controversial enough in Europe, but at least A Land for All is making positive and dynamic proposals, not just a static one which might go nowhere.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have to start with the practical situation on the ground. Hamas is still in place, still armed, still holding hostages, and it will not even accept Israel’s right to exist, let alone commit to living in peace alongside it. I listened to all the legal arguments about borders, but the key points seem to me to be practical, because there is no idea about how any borders would be policed and no guarantees for Israel’s security. The failure to establish a Palestinian state is not the fundamental cause of the problem. It is actually a result of the fundamental problem, which is that Israel’s enemies have always been more determined to prevent the existence of a Jewish state than to allow the establishment of a Palestinian one.
What happened in 1947? It is extraordinary that the noble Baroness just glossed over this when she was introducing her Bill. In 1947, the UN proposed two states side by side. The Jewish people agreed; Israel was established. Seven Arab countries invaded on day one to prevent Israel being established. They were not successful in that, but they did prevent the Palestinian state being established. For a long time, that was exactly the position of the PLO. Now it is the position of Hamas, of Iran, of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of the Houthis, and of large numbers of people in the West Bank too, as we have heard.
I have always campaigned for self-determination, justice, security and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis alike. A majority of Israelis have supported a two-state solution. The Palestinians have been offered a state on at least five occasions, most recently in 2008. There was agreement: they were offered at least 95% of what they wanted and there was an agreement about how to deal with the question of the settlements. When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it had a functioning economy; the PA had control of borders, imports and exports; there was an agreement on a seaport; there were plans for an airport. It was a nascent Palestinian state and it was destroyed by Hamas, which cancelled elections, executed rival Palestinians and used Gaza as a base to attack Israel. That is why the Israelis had to build a security barrier: not to imprison Gazans but to protect Israelis. It is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, the biggest barrier to a Palestinian state is Hamas. The first step must be an end to its ability to attack Israel, and anyone who wants peace should support Israel in defending itself against terrorism.
As for the longer term, I was in Israel a fortnight ago, where we discussed plans to get Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to fund the reconstruction of Gaza and its economy and provide jobs for young Palestinians so that they do not end up joining Hamas. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, was completely correct about this. It would be much more use if we were discussing that instead of this proposal.
I conclude with one final point. Proposals such as this are a barrier to peace. Recognition will be achieved only when the Palestinians commit to peace and by helping Israelis and Palestinians build trust, negotiate and compromise. Suggesting to Palestinians that there is a short cut, that statehood can be imposed by the international community, will make them less likely to engage in building trust, negotiation and compromise. The UK’s role must be to help build long-term stability and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I make no bones about it: a vote now to recognise a Palestinian state would deliver a clear message not just to Hamas but to every terrorist organisation in the world that terrorism wins. Undoubtedly, if this Bill becomes law, it will be seen as a reward for the barbarism of 7 October 2023. Many good-thinking people call for a two-state solution but, regrettably, have not thought it through. They believe innocently that the Palestinians want this, but there is no indication that that is the case. Indeed, the opposite is true. Hamas remains in control, as we have seen from the disgraceful scenes of triumphalism in recent weeks, when a few of the hostages—too few—were allowed to leave Gaza but were first wickedly humiliated by their captors.
It is clear that Hamas is certainly not giving up. The Bill calls for formal recognition of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and for the Palestinian Mission to the UK to be given full diplomatic status, but this is wholly unrealistic. Such a proposal would leave Israel dangerously vulnerable to attack, and, with Hamas still in control, that would be inevitable. As for the Palestinian Mission to the UK, on its website it claims to provide
“official representation for the government of the State of Palestine on behalf of the Palestinian people”.
How can that be possible while Hamas is on the scene, claiming that it represents Palestine? Do those sponsoring this Bill intend that the British Government should recognise this terrorist group as the Palestinian representative in the UK?
Hamas wants just one state: Palestine. Its charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. Until the Palestinians are represented by those genuinely wanting peace and prepared to recognise the State of Israel, no progress can be made. What is more, Hamas is not alone in having that ambition. Those who chant “from the river to the sea” make clear their rejection of a two-state solution. While Hamas remains in control and there are no other Palestinian representatives with whom Israel could negotiate, the idea of recognising a Palestinian state is fanciful.
I do not rule out the idea of a Palestinian state in the future, but any vote to recognise such a state should be considered only when: all the remaining hostages and the bodies of those murdered by Hamas are returned to Israel in a dignified way; Hamas is permanently removed from Gaza and the West Bank and its control is ended; Gaza and the West Bank are demilitarised; there are no more rockets, drones or other weapons, or tunnels, in the region, and the leading Arab states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, have guaranteed this; a new leadership of the Palestinians recognises the State of Israel; and an international peacekeeping force is established to guarantee Israel’s future security. Only when all this is in place and seen to work should we ever consider recognising a Palestinian state.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gold, suggested rather a long timeline for the date when we might recognise a Palestinian state. As other speakers have observed, 146 out of the 193 UN members now recognise Palestine. The number has been growing relentlessly—I would say inexorably. Until recently, the area of the world where there were relatively few supporters was Europe, but now that is changing. Last year, Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia were added to the signatories, which already included Sweden and Poland. The 40-odd states, including Britain, that have not yet signed look increasingly internationally isolated.
The choice for our Government seems clear: do we remain in that diminishing group of states holding out against recognition and eventually and reluctantly take the plunge, or do we take the lead, recognise Palestinian rights and encourage others to do the same? Recognising Palestine is an essential prerequisite for the two-state solution, which is the holy grail repeatedly given to us by whoever wishes to talk about the Israeli-Palestine situation.
Back in April 2017, the International Relations Committee of this House published a report entitled The Middle East: Time for New Realism. On Israel-Palestine, the committee had this to say:
“On its current trajectory, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is on the verge of moving into a phase where the two-state solution becomes an impossibility and is considered no longer viable by either side. The consequences would be grave for the region”.
If the Israelis and the Palestinians were to conclude that a two-state solution is neither possible nor viable, then please can someone tell me, because no one yet has in this debate, what on earth the solution to this dreadful, blood-soaked, interminable 80 year old conflict is? Does it mean a continuation indefinitely of the pattern that has existed since the establishment of the State of Israel, which is one of recurrent, savage wars, interspersed with fearful, menacing periods of relative peace, punctuated by sporadic violence?
Rejecting the two-state solution means, in practice, the de facto sovereignty of the whole of Israel-Palestine by the Israelis, with the permanent subjugation of millions of Palestinians. The truth is that, however difficult and complicated the establishment of a two-state solution may be, there is, to coin a phrase, no alternative. This is why the Bill before us is so important, because, of course, a two-state solution requires recognition of both the states.
It is no use repeating the mantra that we support the two-state solution but now is not the right time. Now is the right time. Indeed, with the growth of settlements, now is very close to being the last possible time, so surely the UK should join the 146 UN members that have recognised Palestine. Such a move would give dignity and status to what Labour describes in its manifesto as
“the inalienable right of the Palestinian people”.
It is the right thing to do, both morally and politically, and it is in the interests of all the states in the region, including Israel.
I urge the Government not to prevaricate, and not to say that we believe in Palestinian statehood but not just yet. The time has come to do it, and quickly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the sensitivities in this debate, but I ask remaining speakers to stick within the advisory speaking time of three minutes.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I shall try to take less than three minutes, then, taking the lead from the Government Front Bench.
There have been so many missed opportunities to have a secure, just and durable two-state solution. That has been made clear during this debate. President Clinton, for example, has said that there would have been an internationally supported Palestinian state in existence for over two decades if Yasser Arafat had not rejected that possibility in July 2000 at Camp David in the final settlement. But those of us who support the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis have to face up to the current realities, which, sadly, make the legally prescribed timetable set out in the Bill implausible.
First, that is because, instead of what is proposed in the Bill, the urgent need right now is the release of all remaining hostages, humanitarian aid, the full demilitarisation of Hamas and a start to the reconstruction of Gaza. Those are the immediate priorities for both Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, painful as it is to admit, a Palestinian state conjured into existence right now in the rubble of Gaza, with the trauma of war and the continuing chokehold of Hamas, would, in all likelihood, immediately become a failed state. The institutions of legitimate government do not exist. The Palestinian Authority or the proposed committee of technocrats suggested by the Arab League would lack a monopoly of lawful force and, since 7 October, we have seen precisely what a Hamas exterminationist programme of government, if allowed to continue, would look like.
That points to a third fundamental truth, which is that, notwithstanding all our hopes, in the real world there is not going to be a viable and durable Palestinian state without peace and security guarantees from neighbouring Arab states, not least given that Iran continues to intensify its nuclear weapons programme. In other words, a two-state solution needs a 22-state solution and, rather than symbolic gestures, that is what our country’s practical diplomacy should now be directed towards.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on introducing this Private Member’s Bill, which I strongly support. Some have said that a two-state solution is no longer an option, but they have yet to propose an alternative. I believe that the only viable option is a two-state solution. Some 5.32 million Palestinians are recognised as a distinct population with the inalienable right to self-determination under the UN charter, making a Palestinian territory comprising the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
The Montevideo criteria have been referred to, but the Palestinians have a defined territory, as mentioned. It is universally accepted that this territory does not need to be fixed or of a particular size. When the UK recognised Israel in 1950, it did so without defining borders or its capital.
Palestine is recognised by 75% of the countries around the world, a global majority. The UK has supported the various UN resolutions that affirm the rights of the Palestinian people. It is the occupation that has hampered Palestinians in the achievement of self-determination and territorial integrity. The Palestinians are a highly educated people, with a distinct culture. They need our support to achieve a brighter future and should not have their human rights, which we all take for granted, denied.
Sympathy and symbolic gestures will not result in change. Recognition will give the people of Palestine the dignity and credibility to negotiate as equals. To make a two-state solution a reality means listening to those on the ground, the ordinary peace-loving people of both Israel and Palestine, of whom there are many, despite the divisive rhetoric and misery of this past year and a half. Palestinian and Israeli organisations are working together to shift the dynamics on the ground and combat settler violence and rampages through Palestinian towns and villages, and are educating and campaigning within and among their communities for diplomacy and non-violence. The organisations include: Rabbis for Human Rights, Looking the Occupation in the Eye, Combatants for Peace, Molad, Ir Amim, the Holy Land Trust, House of Lope and Nonviolence International, to name but a few of the many.
I welcome that in December the Prime Minister endorsed the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace to support civil society in the region as part of the work to negotiate a two-state solution. This is an important and welcome step, but in an ever-worsening situation the UK must do more, show real leadership and bring a degree of urgency to the matter. We must enhance the international rules-based order so that all are enfranchised and protected by it, whether in the global north or the global south, rather than benefiting only those with power who can discard it whenever they wish. Most importantly, we must do everything to protect our humanity with integrity and our moral compass.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, yesterday your Lordships’ House was debating the UK’s global position. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who called the debate, spoke about the need to work with the neo-non-aligned nations, the majority of the world’s states and people, who wish neither to cling to the coattails of the chaotic court of President Trump and answer to his whims nor to fall into the strangling gasp of the autocracies of Presidents Putin and Xi. These are states that wish to continue to uphold human rights and the rule of law, the norms hard won by campaigners and activists over past decades.
The question yesterday was essentially: what can the UK do as a middle-ranked power? Where should we position ourselves? Today we have the chance, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to offer a direct, important, practical course of action: the recognition of the state of Palestine. As many noble Lords have noted, this aligns with the Labour Party manifesto from the recent election and with a majority of those neo-non-aligned states, 146 in total, which already recognise the state of Palestine. We are the laggards here and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, we do not have to wait for this Bill to go through all our parliamentary procedures. I join the noble Lord’s call for the Government to immediately recognise the state of Palestine.
We have had a powerful and important debate and I do not intend to go over the ground that has already been extensively covered. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that the need for the Palestinian people to have state recognition has never been so acute. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, that the recognition of the Palestinian state should be the first step, not the last, particularly with the looming gangsterish threats of the court in Washington which have suggested the reverse of self-determination, seemingly casually suggesting that the Palestinian people should be cleared out of Gaza.
As many noble Lords have indicated, recognition does not show support for any group or organisation within Palestine. It is a recognition of the need of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state. Who might that be for? A Human Rights Watch report from January this year, “Five Babies in One Incubator”: Violations of Pregnant Women’s Rights Amid Israel’s Assault on Gaza, tells the story of RM, a 31 year-old who was two months pregnant on 7 October 2023. She almost starved through her pregnancy, could not get adequate perinatal care and, after enduring a difficult labour, was forced to leave hospital after four hours and beg for a lift home. She and her family were then forced to evacuate their home and, at last report, were living in a tent, the newborn baby suffering from diarrhoea.
State recognition of course will not meet the medical needs of RM and her baby, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it would offer a gesture of hope. It would be something we could and should do.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Northover has done this House and the Government a great service by raising the possibility in her Bill of redressing a profound injustice with which we as a country have colluded for decades.
The implementation of UN Resolution 181, agreed almost 80 years ago in 1947, has been obstructed. The State of Israel came into being, but neither the state of Palestine nor the special status of Jerusalem have emerged. Has the wish for a Palestinian state gone away? Well, the Jewish wish for a state survived for around 2,000 years, so why do they imagine that the Palestinian wish for a state will disappear? As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and some others, have said, the global trajectory is increasingly towards support for Palestine and loss of support for Israel’s position and indeed for countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, whose stand is damaging their international reputation.
Those who oppose recognition criticise the other side, quoting the very real and horrible facts of terrorist outrages, quoting legal objections and obstacles, giving special regard to one side in the conflict, blaming the other and giving a veto to a Government who have no intention of producing a peaceful outcome. I listen to this and I have heard it before. I heard it in Northern Ireland—precisely the same voices and sentiments from unionists who had governed Northern Ireland for 50 years. It is often the same people in the same parties who are saying the same things that they said about Northern Ireland, and indeed, in some cases, South Africa. Eventually, the British Government stopped accepting a veto on progress and indicated that they wanted to see a change. Without that change of attitude, there would have been no peace process, no end to the terrorism and no Good Friday agreement.
I say to the Minister that those who reject this Bill and the other opportunities that are offered will find that history will judge them harshly. I have seen it; I remember speaking with a friend in South Africa who said, “The Broederbond will never allow it”; I grew up in a part of the United Kingdom where it seemed clear that the Orange Order and those who supported it would never allow a pluralist Government and a change of approach. But it came, and if there is one message of the last few weeks, it is that when the dam bursts, it does not burst gradually.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice: Israel has peace with Egypt; it has peace with Jordan and normalised relations with the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco. Israel does not appear to be the problem. Why do noble Lords who talk about the Balfour Declaration always forget the second part? We hear about the part that says
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Then it is a full stop. What about the second part, which says
“the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”?
We know what happened to the Jews in the Arab lands of that period; it is easily forgotten.
Symbolic gestures do not create peace. Recognising a Palestinian state outside of negotiations is not a solution. It does not improve governance, security or economic stability. Instead, it sends a dangerous message that violence and extremism can be rewarded. I remind noble Lords that Hamas refuses to recognise Israel. Crucially, this moment cannot be separated from the horror of 7 October 2023. There can be no reward for barbarism and no reward for terrorism.
The irony that this debate falls on Purim should not be lost. Purim is a beautiful festival of joy and happiness. We recall the courage of Esther, who stood up to the forces of hatred in ancient Persia when Haman sought to eradicate the Jewish people. The story culminates with Charvona, a servant of the king’s palace, who, though initially aligned with Haman, eventually recognised the evil of his actions. He chose to speak up, revealing Haman’s treachery to the king. What is so striking about Charvona’s decision is his willingness to stand against evil, despite the personal risks. He understood that there comes a moment when one must speak the truth, no matter the cost. Charvona ultimately chose to act with integrity and, in doing so, helped bring about the downfall of Haman and the salvation of the Jewish people. Today, we must take a lesson and stand firm against extremism and hatred.
Silence in the face of the threats posed by Hamas and the Iranian regime and those who wish to destroy Israel is no longer an option. The silent majority in this country who condemn the actions of Hamas and the atrocities committed against Israel must now find their voice. Like Charvona, this is the time to speak up. We must be brave enough to speak the truth, call it out for what it is, and ensure that we do not reward those who seek violence over peace.
In conclusion, on 7 October, Hamas terrorists waged the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust—240 civilians taken hostage, 59 of them still there today. These terrorists openly and proudly share the same anti-Semitic philosophy as the Nazis and Haman from the story. They do not merely seek to attack Israelis; they want to eradicate all Jews. To support the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time would be to reward their actions. It would betray the victims of 7 October, condone hostage taking, promote anti-Semitism and declare that Jews’ lives did not matter. It would threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Israel and Jews around the world, and it would hand a posthumous victory to Hitler, Haman and Hamas.
Now, more than ever, we must be clear-eyed and principled in our approach. This is not the time for symbolic gestures that serve only to inflame tensions. It is the time to stand firmly for peace, truth, and the security of all people in the region. I urge this House to stand firmly against premature recognition and in favour of a truly negotiated peace.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have been given the privilege of being able to say a few words during the gap, and I will try not to abuse that indulgence. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for instigating this debate, and I support her in everything that she said. I believe that the recognition of Palestine should be imminent. We should have done it already. It should not be the prize at the end of a process; that approach has not worked, nor will it. However, I do not understand why on the one hand we say that Palestinian statehood is conditional when at the same time we are turning a blind eye to the illegal expansion of Israel, building out the possibility of a two-state solution.
At the risk of repeating everything we have heard today, let me say that more than 146 members of the United Nations have already recognised Palestine. I pay tribute to the leadership that has been shown by our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, particularly in relation to what is going on in Ukraine. We would now like to see some of that leadership in relation to what is going on in Israel.
Regardless of what has been said about the Balfour Declaration, that declaration was a British initiative, and we have an enduring responsibility to ensure that all parts of it are upheld. I listened closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the conditions needed under international law to create a state. I have to say that he is a brilliant lawyer, but his approach was somewhat selective. For instance, some of the things that he spoke about are not achievable because of what is going on in the West Bank and in Gaza itself. He also failed to mention anything about the right of return for those descendants of Palestinians around the world—there are almost 5 million of them—who have had to leave what is now Israel.
I have a question for the Minister. The encylopedia definition of ethnic cleansing states that it is
“the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area … it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and”—
critically—“preventing its return”. I am mindful of the use of language in dealing with this issue, having been a former chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, of which my noble friend Lord Soames is the president, but, in the Government’s opinion, would the forcible removal of the population of Gaza constitute a crime against humanity?
I want a strong Israel—we need a stronger Israel now more than at almost any time—but it has to win international support, and it is losing that support. If it is involved in the forcible eviction of the population of Gaza, we have not seen the likes of what will ensue, nor do we wish to.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there are times when we are reminded that we are all privileged to have a voice in public life. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to have what has been a generally very thoughtful and respectful debate on a vital issue. It is a vital issue of British foreign policy, but also of the very nature of peace.
I say to those who have got close to suggesting that there are some motives behind my noble friend’s proposition linked with some form of emboldening terrorism, that no one in this House supports terrorism. No one in the British Parliament supports terrorism and we should not even get close to suggesting that that is part of the motive.
Some have argued in the debate that recognition will embolden extremists. The failure to have recognition, some have argued, has already emboldened the extremists we see within the political system in Israel. The answer, which I would assume should have consensus across all elements in this debate, is to remove the incentive for extreme positions on a situation which is, I understand, the settled will of the United Kingdom—that there will be a Palestinian state.
Therefore, my noble friend should be commended for bringing her Bill to this House, allowing us to debate the need to make rapid progress on a Palestinian state and the fact that the United Kingdom can play a very significant part through recognition. There has been reference to groups; the noble Lord, Lord Katz, referred to Yachad. I am a great admirer of its work. There is also the British Palestine Project, which is the former Balfour Project. There have been many UK-based organisations which are part of considered debates on this issue. That is to our overall credit in this country.
It has also been interesting to me that no one in this debate—not a single person—has denied that Palestine is an occupied territory, such occupation being illegal under international law. That is helpful. There seems to be a complete consensus on that in this debate. My party takes the view, over many years of consideration, that recognition is the platform for the conclusive negotiations of a longer-term arrangement between Palestine and Israel, not a conclusion where one state determines the status of the other—especially, in the context of what my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, when one of those states is illegally occupying the territory of another. That creates a distortion of incentive in any form of looking at a sustainable peace for the long term.
The issue for some—including, I suspect, for the Minister—is timing. Timing is policy in itself. Therefore, we should recognise this. I want to quote from Hansard, referring to Middle East peace:
“the Palestinian problem lies at the very heart of the issue. The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories.”.—[Official Report, 14/5/1979; col. 240.]
This was Lord Carrington, in his first speech as Foreign Secretary when the Thatcher Government was formed in 1979.
As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, highlighted, that was the year of UN Security Council Resolution 446, prohibiting illegal settlements. They numbered not more than 15,000 people then. As he said, 45 years later, it is 750,000. He outlined the intent of certain Israeli Government Ministers—not a gesture, but intent—for that to be expanded further. Therefore, timing is of critical importance as policy. We will only repeat the failures of the past if we do not act.
The situation on the ground, some noble Lords have argued, prevents us acting now. When did that situation on the ground start? Was it 1979, or in 2025? Some in the debate have suggested that the conditions on the ground now—the presence of Hamas, and the continued displacement and threats—are a reward for terrorism. That is surely an argument to suggest that the current ceasefire is a mistake, but I have not heard them say that in this debate. I wonder why not. Do they feel that it is a grave error and legitimisation of Hamas for the US Government to have sat down bilaterally with Hamas last week, without that being part of any structured involvement of the Palestinian Authority or brokered talks through Qatar?
Some noble Lords have argued in the debate that, in the absence of finalised agreements on border areas, resource access, infrastructure challenges, displaced people, proposed land swaps that have not been agreed, and lack of normalisation at the start of the political process with its nearest neighbour, the time is not right —"the gesture”, as some have suggested. But if those criteria, set by them in this debate, were in place on 18 February 2008, we would not have recognised Kosovo. In recognising Kosovo, the then Labour Government said that the UK was doing so when others did not because they had made the judgment that it would be impossible to see a return to Serbian control. Some would argue, presumably, that that position should have been denied for South Sudan on 9 July 2011.
The situation on the ground is a political one. The question is whether we want to see two parties negotiate on an equivalent basis regarding an incentive for the future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, indicated. In many ways, the case is stronger for Palestinian recognition. I was not surprised that this debate had two eminent lawyers speaking in it; I was equally unsurprised that they took a contrary view. But a political view must see that Palestine has a defined territory, recognised in customary UK foreign policy, and in trade and partnership agreements between His Majesty’s Government and Palestine, based on historical borders, as my noble friend indicated. Palestine does have a permanent population within boundaries, as the UK has recognised through direct diplomatic consular representation of UK interests in those territorial areas. It has a Government, who we have supported on a consular, technical and funding basis, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states, which we know is happening now. All the criteria of the 1933 Montevideo convention apply more strongly to Palestine than they did to Kosovo in 2008 or South Sudan in 2011.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, whom I respect, spoke clearly and sincerely. He suggested that this should happen at the end of the process, but not now. I have visited Israel—a visit promoted by Yachad—and I met others who took a position distinct from his. For me, the question is who now rebuilds from the rubble and who now negotiates a future for both states, where trauma is intense, where there are still extreme players, and where the ones with the highest stakes have a mutual need for security. It cannot be President Trump or his envoy, negotiating directly with Hamas; it has to be on the basis of there being recognised states from a United Kingdom perspective.
Before I close, I want to go back to 1979 and 1980, because what was the context then is the context now. The position on the ground is of importance when it comes to ownership and respect; we need to find a way to reduce extremist narratives, as there can only ever be a political solution. The year after Lord Carrington made his speech, David Steel led a Liberal delegation to the Middle East, in September and October 1980. The delegation met President Assad, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, His Majesty King Hussein, Shimon Peres and President Sadat. I close by quoting from the conclusion of that visit. On the question of recognition of Palestinian rights, the delegation said:
“The delegation is convinced that no lasting international agreement is either possible or just which does not recognise the rights of the Palestinian people. At the core of that recognition is the creation of a national Palestinian identity, free to determine its future relations with its neighbours. As the Lebanese Foreign Minister Mr Boutros put it, ‘The homeland is the beginning of a solution.’”
The time is now, not in another 45 years.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing this Bill forward. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the purpose of Private Members’ Bills was to provoke a debate. The noble Baroness can certainly congratulate herself on having done that. We have heard many passionate and strongly argued positions on both sides and across parties, which has been fascinating.
She will not be surprised to hear that, unfortunately, these Benches cannot support the Bill. While we recognise the deep concerns and strong convictions on this matter, we must ensure that any action taken aligns with our principles and our long-standing foreign policy commitments. The Conservative Party has consistently supported a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We agree that it is imperative to offer the people of the West Bank and Gaza the political perspectives of a credible route to statehood and a future of peace and prosperity. However, we maintain that the recognition of a Palestinian state must come at a time when it is most conducive to that peace process. That moment has not yet arrived. Recognition also cannot be the start of the process.
As many others have said, the horrific atrocities committed on 7 October remain fresh in the memory. Hostages are still being held by Hamas and, until recently, Hamas was still being fought in many parts of Gaza. Every effort must be made to ensure that every single hostage is returned safely to their family. This is a matter not merely of diplomacy but of fundamental human rights. Furthermore, any path to peace requires that Hamas no longer governs Gaza and that its capacity to launch attacks against Israel is decisively removed and ended. Ensuring the dismantling of terrorist networks is an unavoidable and necessary step towards a lasting resolution.
If the Palestinian Authority is to take on an expanded role, it becomes even more imperative that it implements the most significant programme of reform in its history. Such reforms must include fundamental changes to welfare and education policies that leave so much to be desired. Transparency, accountability and good governance must be at the heart of any PA Administration. Democratic progress must also be demonstrable. As we have said before, we would also like to see Israel take steps, including in relation to frozen funds and West Bank settlements. We want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords, which we hope can be restarted.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is very unusual for a state to be recognised through an Act of Parliament. Usually, the royal prerogative is used to recognise states. Like others, I very much look forward to the response of the Government and the Minister.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting this Bill and thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It was good to meet the noble Baroness to discuss her Bill in advance of this debate. I thank her for her time. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, Private Members’ Bills provide an important and helpful opportunity to debate these important issues. Before I address the Bill directly, I will speak to some of the issues around the ceasefire, Gaza and the West Bank today.
The current agreement to end the fighting in Gaza is a moment of opportunity after more than a year of agony. We must thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless mediation efforts and take comfort that British citizen Emily Damari and UK-linked Eli Sharabi have been freed after their horrific ordeal at the hands of Hamas, and that the body of UK-linked Oded Lifshitz has been returned to his family.
The ceasefire remains fragile. We need all parties to sustain the ceasefire and deliver the agreement in full, with the release of all hostages, and move it through the phases and into a lasting peace. The ceasefire agreement is just the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region. Long-term stability will require a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. Only that, over time, will ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.
Even with the welcome ceasefire, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate. We are gravely concerned by recent Israeli restrictions on aid and electricity supplies entering Gaza. Aid should not be used as a political tool, and we urge Israel to lift restrictions immediately to ensure that the supply of humanitarian assistance and access to essential services in Gaza continue. The Foreign Secretary made this clear to Israel’s Foreign Minister during their call on 5 March. Israel must work closely with the UN and all partners to facilitate a surge in aid, including reinstating commercial deliveries and allowing more types of goods into Gaza to support health and shelter needs and the resumption of basic services.
We have been clear that Gazans must now be allowed to return to their homes and rebuild. We do not support any forcible removal of people from or within Gaza or the West Bank, or any reduction in the territory of the OPTs.
The Foreign Secretary, along with the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Italy, has welcomed the Arab initiative of a recovery and reconstruction plan for Gaza. It shows a realistic path to the reconstruction of Gaza and improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for Palestinians living there. These plans must be based on a solid political and security framework that is acceptable to, and provides long-term peace and security for, both Israelis and Palestinians. We are committed to working with the Arab initiative, the Palestinians and Israel to develop these plans, including on security and governance.
Our funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year has included a £2 million uplift through a contribution to the World Bank to deliver water and energy infrastructure across the OPTs. This will support early recovery efforts. We are funding two roles within the Palestinian Authority’s recovery, reconstruction and development team, strengthening the PA’s capacity to plan for the next phase in Gaza.
On the West Bank, we have made clear our serious concern at recent Israeli military activity. Israel must show restraint, ensure that the scale of its operations is proportionate to the threat posed and minimise the loss of civilian lives and property. Stability and security are essential at this time. Settlement expansion has reached record levels in the last 12 months. The Israeli Government seized more of the West Bank in 2024 than in the previous 20 years. We are clear that settlements are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution.
In October last year, we sanctioned three outposts and four entities that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the West Bank. We will look at all options to take tougher action. The Prime Minister has been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Israeli Government must take greater action to hold violent settlers to account and to clamp down on those who seek to inflame tensions.
I turn now to the issue of recognition. As many noble Lords have pointed out, Palestinian statehood is the right of the Palestinian people. It is not the gift of any neighbour, and it is vital that the people of the West Bank and Gaza are given the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. This needs to be irreversible. That is why this Government unequivocally support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. That is why our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. I note the route suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I thank him for his constructive approach. I am not, as he would expect, in a position to endorse his idea, but I thank him for making that suggestion.
However, my noble friends and I do not support this Bill today. This is not because we do not support the goal—as many have said, this Government strongly support recognition of the state of Palestine—but because imposing a timetable on this decision would hinder our ability to achieve the goal of a sustainable two-state solution, as my noble friend Lord Katz said. We must take this step when the time is right. Meanwhile, we will work tirelessly alongside our international partners to support a process towards sustainable peace.
This financial year, the UK has provided £129 million to help alleviate the suffering, including £41 million for UNRWA, which is supporting the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region. UK support has meant that more 500,000 people have received essential healthcare; 647,000 people have received food; and 284,000 people have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. We are working with partners to support the surge in humanitarian aid to Gaza that is needed now.
It is in the long-term interests of both Israelis and Palestinians that this ceasefire holds and progresses through each of its phases, and that both sides take this opportunity to begin the process of rebuilding a pathway to peace and stability. Peace will be sustainable only if both sides recommit to a renewed peace process resulting in a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This Government are committed to doing all we can both to support this and to recognise a Palestinian state, which we will do not at the end of a process, as some have suggested, but at the point at which recognition by the United Kingdom would have the greatest effect in bringing about the peace and stability that every speaker this afternoon wishes so dearly to see.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank everyone for their contributions, including the one that we have just heard from the Minister. Strangely enough, I particularly appreciate noble Lords’ support, but here I single out how amazing it was to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a Kindertransport child whose wise, generous and constructive contributions in Parliament over so many years bring him now to support my Bill. I am humbled and honoured that he did so.
I have been in this House for many years. I can hardly count the number of Ministers who have held the line, “Recognised but not now”, but have, when out of government, often deeply regretted that action on this was not taken. So I certainly hope that this Government will move forward, as the Minister indicated. The instability in the region and globally, which is terribly affecting Israelis as well as Palestinians, demands that this is more than urgent.
Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Baroness Finn would ensure that a Statutory Instrument which is challenged by the House of Lords under section 1 can only be withheld for a maximum of forty days, after which it shall be approved.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I start by setting out the Official Opposition’s broad approach to the Bill. We wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his desire to improve scrutiny of secondary legislation. We agree that a “think again” power might be a useful additional tool for Parliament when considering secondary legislation.
Approximately 3,500 statutory instruments are made each year, with Parliament considering around 1,000 of them. Governments are increasingly using statutory instruments to carry on their business, and it is only right that Parliament has the appropriate tools to scrutinise secondary legislation. Indeed, Conservative Ministers have previously sought to introduce a similar power, on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde did some excellent work. We support the improved scrutiny of secondary legislation and have tabled a number of constructive amendments to probe the noble Lord’s intentions and understand how the Bill would work in practice
On my Amendments 1 and 2, the Bill as drafted would require a Minister of the Crown to table a Motion in the other place when your Lordships’ House passes a Motion to withhold approval of a statutory instrument on the grounds that the Minister should consider amending it. Our amendments would limit the length of time the House of Lords could withhold approval of a statutory instrument to a maximum of 40 days.
Were your Lordships’ House to prove overzealous in the use of the new “think again” power, this could run the risk of clogging up the Order Paper in the other place, hindering that House’s ability to effectively manage its own business. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that regret Motions in your Lordships’ House have no legal effect and are thought by some to be a waste of time, but with this amendment we are testing whether it is appropriate for your Lordships’ House to have the ability to trigger large numbers of debatable Motions in another place. We seek to understand more fully what the implications of that new power might be.
Instead of leaving the possibility of an unacceptable number of “think again” Motions being moved in another place, our amendment would mean that a Government who do not wish to heed the recommendation to think again would not have to table a separate Motion to reject those concerns. Admittedly, this leaves the discretion not to amend the statutory instrument with the Minister alone, rather than the other place, but the other place has its own powers to approve or reject secondary legislation as it sees fit.
If the Bill becomes law in its present form, we should seek to ensure that your Lordships’ House uses these powers very sparingly. It would be an unacceptable state of affairs if your Lordships’ House could withhold a large number of statutory instruments, forcing the Government to move a time-consuming number of Motions in the other place.
I will now speak my Amendment 3. In its current form, this part of the Bill seems to imply that your Lordships’ House could choose not to consider a re-laid statutory instrument if it did not wish to do so. Our amendment seeks to clarify the drafting to ensure that all statutory instruments that have been considered, challenged and re-laid are considered formally again before being approved.
We are particularly concerned that, should a circumstance arise where your Lordships’ House could choose not to consider formally an amended and re-laid statutory instrument, the decision to use the new “think again” power would have an impact on parliamentary time in another place but not in your Lordships’ House. This clarification would retain a light check on the House using this power too frequently, or even as a standard response to statutory instruments where minor disagreement arises. Noble Lords would know that any decision to use the powers in Clause 1 would have a direct impact on parliamentary time in your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will know that, as I explained when I spoke at Second Reading, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am very concerned indeed by the way statutory instruments are dealt with, whichever Government are in power. We have on many occasions put forward suggestions as to how this could be settled in a satisfactory manner.
At the moment, we have statutory instruments which are badly drafted. There is no mechanism whereby, once laid, they could be amended. On one occasion, the last time the Labour Party was in power, I persuaded a Minister to withdraw an instrument and lay it again. That should not be necessary. There should be some mechanism whereby statutory instruments can be amended.
There are a number of other criticisms. Perhaps the most important is that Explanatory Memoranda should actually explain. Many is the occasion when the Explanatory Memorandum seems to try to explain the inexplicable by repeating the wording of the statutory instrument, as if that was an explanation. Then we have statutory instruments without proper impact assessments. So I warmly welcome the way the noble Lord is approaching this subject.
I say to my noble friend Lady Finn that her route, of tabling amendments to make the Bill more acceptable by putting us on the same basis as the House of Commons so that both Houses have powers to improve the quality of secondary legislation, can only be a step in the right direction. I anticipate that the Minister may find ways to make it no longer possible to support the Bill, which I would greatly regret. Therefore, it is very much up to us all to amend the Bill so that it becomes more acceptable, whichever Government are in power, so I warmly support my noble friend.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, I do not wish to say anything about the urgent need for reform. Clarifying the use of the word “may” via Amendment 3 is sensible. You do not want to leave any dispute about it because “may” often means “must”, at least to a lawyer.
However, I have concerns about the effect of the other two amendments. First, given the speed at which statutory instruments proceed, giving the House power to delay for only 40 days might mean that a Minister will shrug his shoulders and say, “So what?” Secondly, it seems to me that if the procedure in subsection (2) is to be followed, then “a Minister must” is completely right, as is the use of “must” in line 16. The “must” in subsection (2) is right because you want to ensure that the Minister does something; it should not be at his discretion.
In discussions when the result of the last election was more speculative, one picked up the feeling in the House that some people would be happy to see the procedure changed so that there was proper scrutiny. But, as it currently stands, the statutory instrument procedure is the most wonderful tool for a Government, because it enables them to avoid lengthy—in my view, sometimes wholly unnecessarily lengthy—debates in the House. Unless we can make the statutory instrument procedure work more effectively in the manner suggested by this Bill, it seems to me that we are steadily eroding the power of this House to properly examine important legislation. One has only to look at something such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I completely understand why the Government wanted that to be a framework Bill, because the procedures of the House make it impossible to do it by primary legislation, but if we cannot change our procedure for primary legislation, we have to change the procedure for secondary legislation. Therefore, I support one of the amendments in this group, but not the other two.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their support. They have really said everything that I could say about the simple provision that is being put forward. I just say that the amendments are really misconceived. If the second amendment, to put “may” for “must” in subsection (2), were passed, it would mean that the Minister would have discretion not to bring the matter before the House of Commons at all, and that would be the end of it: after 40 days, nothing happens and the provision goes through unamended, with all its faults.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his continued work championing the important issue of secondary legislation.
As we all know, this House plays a vital role in ensuring that all legislation brought forward by this Government is of the highest standard. I am grateful for the role played by committees of this House, including the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in ensuring that statutory instruments are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Our current procedures and processes for statutory instruments allow for both Houses to scrutinise and debate instruments.
Turning to the first group of amendments, which address the scrutiny of instruments in this place, I believe that these amendments are well intended, and I recognise that they represent a check on the power of this place and assert its right to scrutinise instruments laid before it. However, the Government’s view remains that we should continue to get this right in the first instance. That is why, as my noble friend Lady Anderson set out at Second Reading, we must focus our efforts on ensuring that statutory instruments are delivered to the highest quality in the first place.
That is not to say that the situation is perfect. This Government are aware that Parliament has not always been given the information it needs to fully scrutinise legislation, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has sometimes asked for further detail. This has on occasion led to some Explanatory Memoranda being replaced to include that information. But I remind the House, and, I hope, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that this Government have pledged, and intend, to do better. This does not mean, however, that we need to revise the procedures for the consideration of statutory instruments.
In a similar vein, while I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her amendment which seeks to ensure that this House does not have greater powers to amend statutory instruments than the other place, I maintain that the Government’s position is that the legislation before us is not the way to remedy our processes regarding such instruments. I am, none the less, grateful to her for drawing attention to the importance of maintaining a balance between the powers of our Houses.
Additional training, resources and guidance have been and continue to be developed and revised as appropriate to support our ongoing efforts to do better. This includes training and resources for Ministers and civil servants, and last month the Guide to Making Legislation was updated. This update includes a new delegated powers toolkit which has been produced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and which will support departments to decide whether to include a delegated power in a Bill. Our hope is that this will support the subsequent development of quality instruments and supporting documentation.
The final group concerns the technical correction of statutory instruments. It would be remiss of me at this point not to draw the Committee’s attention to the excellent work carried out by the National Archives, which oversees the so-called correction slip process. This is a well-established process through which the Government can already make minor, non-substantive corrections to defective statutory instruments after their publication. The National Archives does an excellent job in assessing whether a corrections slip is appropriate on a case-by-case basis and, where applicable, issues the slip to the Vote Office in the Commons and the Printed Paper Office in the Lords.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I think the Minister may be talking to the next group of amendments.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his response to my amendments, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their contributions. Having been a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when I first joined your Lordships’ House—I think it was during the first two or three years of the Brexit legislation—I have full sympathy with the points made on Explanatory Memoranda and lack of impact assessments, so I fully support all that my noble friend said on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point that he disagrees with my Amendments 1 and 2 about only the Minister having the power to lay the statutory instruments before the other place and the time limit. I understand his arguments. On Amendment 3, if we do not want to leave any doubt on “may” or “must”, it is probably simpler to leave it as “must” rather than “may”.
However, I entirely sympathise with the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for drafting the Bill. Presently, your Lordships have a binary choice of whether to reject an SI or approve it. There is no procedural mechanism for the Government or Members in another place to consider your Lordships’ reasons for refusal. The Bill would allow any challenge from your Lordships’ House to be considered in another place, and I am pleased that there is within the Bill the clear power for the elected House to reject the proposed changes recommended by noble Lords. This, as the noble Lord argued at Second Reading, preserves the primacy of the elected House over the revising and scrutinising Chamber.
That said, as we will debate in the next group, it is not clear why the power to initiate the “think again” process is vested solely in your Lordships’ House under this Bill. I am pleased to have been able to put our concerns on the record, but, as I said at the beginning of our debate, we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in bringing forward the Bill. We hope that our constructive amendments have provoked a useful debate on the appropriate powers that this House should have to amend secondary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
“(6) Where for the purposes of subsection (1) the House in which the instrument is considered is the House of Commons, the rest of this section will apply with “the House of Commons” in place of “the House of Lords”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would ensure the House of Lords does not have greater powers to amend statutory instruments than the House of Commons.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4 seeks to grant another place the same power to initiate the “think again” procedure under Clause 1. In the other place, secondary legislation is considered differently than in your Lordships’ House. When an affirmative statutory instrument is tabled there, it is automatically referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. These committees have 16 to 18 members, and any member can attend and speak, but only members of the committee can vote. A Delegated Legislation Committee considers an SI but does not have the power to stop it. In some rare cases, the statutory instrument is not referred to a committee but is debated on the Floor of the House if it is of particular interest. Once the statutory instrument has been debated by a committee, it needs final approval by another place before being made and becoming law.
As noble Lords will see, the other place suffers from precisely the same handicap as your Lordships’ House when considering secondary legislation. It has the binary choice to approve or not to approve. That is the question.
I tabled this amendment to probe the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to grant an equal power to the other place to initiate the “think again” procedure. We are open to discussions on the precise drafting of this amendment, but it is the principle we are seeking to probe. Why should your Lordships’ House have the power to trigger a process by which Ministers are asked to think again when another place does not have that power? I accept that the Bill grants another place the ultimate say on whether Ministers are forced to amend their instrument, thus preserving the primacy of the elected House, but we do not understand why it is only your Lordships’ House that can initiate a process that asks the Government to reconsider.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not going to go over all the points I already made in anticipation of the noble Baroness’s introduction of group 2. As I made clear, additional training, resources and guidance have been, and continue to be, developed and revised as appropriate to support our genuine, ongoing effort to do better. We hope that this will support the subsequent development of good-quality instruments and supporting documentation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, my objection to this amendment is that it simply does not make sense. We cannot, in the machinery that is set out in my Bill, conceivably exchange the position of the House of Lords for the House of Commons. I am not proposing legislating for the House of Commons but for the House of Lords, in the fulfilment of its function as a revising Chamber. If you change the words round—to read “House of Commons” instead of “House of Lords”—we would be asking the House of Commons to advise itself that it has made a mistake. I do not think that that can be done. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, I regret to say, does not make sense in the way that it is framed.
The machinery I have proposed allows the House of Lords to consider an instrument that is put before it and whether it has any concerns. If it has concerns, it does not form them into an amendment to the instrument; it simply conveys those concerns to the House of Commons for it to consider. Clause 1(2) offers two possible courses of action for the House of Commons: it can reject the concerns expressed altogether, and that is the end of that; alternatively, it can request the Minister to make amendments to the draft instrument. It is the House of Commons that makes the suggestion, to the Minister, of an amendment.
You cannot reverse that and suggest that there should be some machinery in the House of Commons to ask the House of Lords to make suggestions of amendments and to frame amendments for a Minister to make. It just does not make sense. Accordingly, since this particular amendment is a complete muddle, and with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, I ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for engaging with me on this amendment yesterday. I understand why, as he explained then, he thinks that it does not make sense.
We tabled this amendment to highlight the fact that the other place, just like your Lordships’ House, has no power to amend statutory instruments. If your Lordships’ House should have the power to initiate a “think again” process, with the consent of the other place, and to send Ministers back to look at their instrument again, we do not understand why the reverse should not be true—that the other place has the chance to look at it, not just that the Minister bring it.
It could be argued that when the other place disagrees with an instrument as the elected House, it should decline to approve it, yet we know that that has not happened since July 1978. It has been your Lordships’ House that has been more forceful in these matters, having rejected four statutory instruments by fatal Motion since 1997. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this Bill seeks to give Ministers the power to change the text of statutory instruments after they have been approved by Parliament. The Hansard Society discussed the problems posed by incorrect drafting in statutory instruments at length in its 2023 report, Proposals for a New System for Delegated Legislation. In that report, the society confirmed that mundane technical errors might be addressed with a correction slip, but once a statutory instrument is made into law, any significant corrections that need to be made to it require that it be revoked, amended or replaced via a new instrument, thus duplicating many elements of the workload of departmental civil servants, National Archives staff and parliamentary officials, as well as Members. So once a statutory instrument is made, there can be no corrections, no matter how minor or technical, to the text of the secondary legislation.
We appreciate that Clause 2 seeks to put the current post-approval correction process on a statutory footing, but before putting this process into law, we must ask ourselves whether it is good practice in the first place. I accept that successive Governments bear responsibility for this, but Ministers should not introduce statutory instruments that need correction. They should get the drafting right before they are considered by Parliament. This is why we are concerned about putting this process, which seeks to resolve the results of bad practice, into law. The Hansard Society has put forward a proposal that all statutory instruments should be laid before Parliament in draft, other than in exceptional circumstances. This seems a far more sensible way forward. Surely, ironing out errors prior to the approval of a statutory instrument is superior to granting Ministers a statutory power to make those changes after approval. This process invites another concern about how the House is able to undertake sufficient scrutiny of ministerial use of this power to make technical amendments to ensure that the power is not improperly exercised.
Perhaps the newly created power in Clause 1 might be sufficient to give your Lordships’ House the opportunity to highlight errors in statutory instruments and recommend their correction by Ministers. As a general point, and I accept that successive Governments bear responsibility for this, Ministers should not introduce statutory instruments that need correction. They should get the drafting right before they are laid before Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I suppose we are at a crossroads here: are we or are we not going to have legislation to improve statutory instruments and the procedure that is adopted? As I predicted at Second Reading and as we heard earlier from the Minister, there is no general enthusiasm for the Bill, which I regret.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, reminded us, with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill we had a direct confrontation between the Government on one hand and Parliament on the other. Our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made a very clear recommendation that all statutory instruments in the context of that Bill should follow the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, had a special session with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as a result of which the committee said that it was not minded to withdraw its recommendation that all statutory instruments should follow the affirmative procedure. I moved an amendment to observe and support our Select Committee, but it was voted down. I sense that even when a committee as powerful as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has such a strong recommendation, even when it listens to the Minister and still maintains its position, there is no procedure whereby Parliament can hold the Executive to account through the affirmative resolution procedure.
I am filled with scepticism as to whether this is going to make progress. I can well understand my noble friend moving that Clause 2 no longer stand part, because, in a way, we are searching for a way to make this Bill acceptable, so that it can go to the other place and we can put it on the statute book as soon as possible. As the noble Lord knows, I strongly support Clause 1, but I have a nasty feeling that, despite his noble intentions, which I strongly support, we are slowly entering a cul-de-sac. Perhaps the Minister can lay aside all my worries and concerns by suddenly rising to say that she and her colleagues have changed their minds and we are going to have a far better procedure, as set out in this Bill, in which case I will be very pleased indeed.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree, and that is why it is such a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He is right in identifying the crossroads: either we deal with our primary legislative procedure and make it more effective and efficient—in that I have great sympathy with any Government who want to get on with things—or we find a procedure for dealing with important instruments that subjects them to scrutiny on the Floor of the House, where they can be amended. We are doing far too much in the way of important changes to the law by statutory instrument, rather than by work on the Floor of the House through a proper Bill. But, if you decide that you cannot do anything about the primary legislative procedure, you cannot leave the secondary legislative procedure alone. The hereditary Peers Bill is a very good example of why, if you do not take an opportunity to reform one thing, you end up with something much worse. I urge the Government to look very seriously at this Bill.
I cannot agree with the proposal that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. There is quite an important issue at stake. It is impossible, in our present procedure, to get the legislation drafted perfectly when it has not been scrutinised by someone outside it. That is an impossibility. Lawyers will always find things wrong. Although the Minister says that her legislation is perfect, I am afraid I disagree: it is not. It is a little far-fetched to think that, because we have a new Government, the whole machinery of government that drafts all this wakes up in the morning completely transformed. That is not the case. Therefore, there is a need to correct.
What is important here, then, is making sure that we are doing this in the right way. Although I am a great believer in conventions, which is what governs the current position—and what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic shows the importance of convention to the operation of our constitution—if we are altering law, the mechanism for altering it, to accord with the rule of law, has to be under a statutory power; we cannot leave it to convention. Therefore, although some people may raise their eyebrows at this clause, I do not see how you can leave that to convention; you must make it a lawful power under legislation. So I regret to say that I cannot support the proposal of the noble Baroness to amend the Bill in this way.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I have already covered some of my points in this final group. This Government support the current correction slips process. While it should never be needed, it is helpful where minor and technical corrections are required; it is a well-established process and it is used rarely and infrequently. Correction slips, as I started to say previously, are published on legislation.gov.uk, which ensures the transparency of these technical corrections. It is obviously desirable that corrections are never needed, but in our view, we need to be pragmatic in this respect. We should therefore acknowledge that this is a part of a system that works very well, with only 69 correction slips being used in the previous Session of Parliament to make non-substantive amendments to instruments containing minor typographical errors.
Appreciating the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I again give reassurance that this Government genuinely remain committed to improving the delivery of statutory instruments. Noble Lords will be able to judge us on our success over the course of this Parliament. I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to have this debate and for the time given to discuss what we agree is a very important issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the motivation for this proposal came from a very weary colleague who was fed up with sitting in the Moses Room while instruments were brought back to the Grand Committee from Ministers who had made mistakes some months before—what a waste of time. This debate does illustrate the waste of the time of the noble Lords in this House who sit on committees—the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Constitution Committee and the one I always get the name of wrong and on which I sat—
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I thank noble Lords. We spend a long time worrying about whether things should be affirmative or negative. The debates then take place, there are regret Motions and the whole House is trooping through the Lobbies. There is a great deal of worry for everybody to be here. There is barely a sentence in the press the following day. Even if the regret Motion is won, nothing happens.
The proposal in Clause 2, on corrections of statutory instruments, puts into statute and gives a bit of “oomph” to what already exists through the National Archives and the work that it does. I am not saying that that is not done but it has no publicity. It does not have an airing. People’s views are not heard in this Chamber.
Therefore, I resist the noble Baroness’s clause stand part notice and ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his response and for the time that he has taken. I totally understand his frustration with current practice. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for highlighting the problems with secondary legislation and holding the Executive to account.
We know that corrections in secondary legislation are a time-consuming problem. In the 2021-22 Session, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee found that 9.6% of all statutory instruments had to be replaced by a correcting instrument due to errors in the original approved instrument. Clearly, this should be resolved, but we are not convinced that the 40-day period in which Ministers can make corrections will be the silver bullet that we seek. We recognise the problem and hope to consider other possible ways to resolve this ongoing issue before we can accept this new statutory power. I beg leave to withdraw.