Lords Chamber

Friday 14th March 2025

(began 2 weeks, 5 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
10:08
None Portrait Bill do now pass. The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-

indulgence. There are 92,000 care indulgence. There are 92,000 care leavers in that age bracket at any one time. Whilst it is hard to precise how much this bill would precise how much this bill would cost of the best estimate is probably it would add something like £25 million, a year, to the total £25 million, a year, to the total cost on the government. That would enable a young Care Leavers Council enable a young Care Leavers Council in receipt of Universal Credit to get an extra 8 pounds a month.

Which is 1/4, 25% more than they currently is 1/4, 25% more than they currently get. It will be life changing for them, I would argue, very little difference to the state of the nation's finances. Notwithstanding that, I do understand that this is not the way that governments like bills to be added to the Treasury and I fully anticipate that the noble Lady, my good friend, on the frontbench will say that, in a moment or two. I would urge, if there is any possibility of this being discussed, in the other place, then that be permitted.

I have known it so much about care leavers, over leading at this bill through your Lordship's House. I have begun to realise just how much of being in care adds a further adverse childhood experience to young people who have already, because they've got it in care, probably had an adverse childhood experience, at an earlier stage. Their lot, their life chances are typically poorer. We note some even made it into your Lordship's House and that is fantastic, but they suffer a disadvantage well into adult life.

I'm very grateful for the support that has been all around the House. In the early stages in this bill for I thank all noble Lords were participated in that process. I'm very grateful for the charities, including a Barnardo's who have worked extensively with care leavers and young people in care and even more for the young care leavers who came to Parliamentary second reading and met with me, in advance of that and shared with me some of the challenges that they faced in making the transition from when the state has been there parents, to often being told they now have to be living entirely independently at the age of 18.

I'm also grateful to Sarah and the Parliamentary office of the Church of England, here in Westminster. My own staff at the end and and Lucy in my diocese in Manchester. With that I have addressed your Lord's longer stuff addressed your Lord's longer stuff on this matter. -- long enough. -- long enough.
10:10
10:11
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I add my thanks to the right My honourable friend at the Bishop of Manchester and I commend him for his work on this bill and forgiving the whole House an opportunity to understand more about the experiences of care leavers and those indeed in the care system now. I am my thanks to charities like Barnardo's and Become. I had a real experience to speak to care experience young people. I have learnt from discussions with the right reverend Prelate at the early stages of the bill.

The right reverend Prelate is quite right, but adverse childhood experiences at the heart of that and we recognise that many care leavers, because of those experiences they have had are more likely to be out of education, employment or training, to be more likely to experience financial difficulty or health problems are homelessness was not as the right reverend Prelate predicted I'm not in a position to support his bill today, I just want to say, the Government is determined to make sure we offer the right support to care leavers.

We already offer safeguards and specialist services to support them. Care leavers can get the under 25 local housing allowance rate of housing benefit and they can get special support with transitioning into adult claims, extra help in returning to education, if they missed out on that. All kinds of support to get development into jobs. There is much more to do and the right reverend Prelate is right to challenge us. Government is taking steps to improve support for care leavers and young people, more widely. When the children's well-being and Schools Bill come forward we will be looking to see how can we support care leavers to find accommodation, access local services.

With our youth guarantee will hope 18 to 21- year-olds get access to quality training, apprenticeships, or to find work. That is all for another day. I want to thank him and those who brought these issues before the House to thank all the law to have contributed and I look forward to continuing to work on this issue as time moves on.
10:13
10:13
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
Before the noble Lord introduces bill. The advisory speaking on the backbenches's three minutes. That means when we get to 2 minutes you start making your closing remarks, at three minutes of the time is up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to that this bill be now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to that this bill be now read a second time. I wish to explain the context of the bill detailing its principal provisions and most importantly of all stress what it is designed to achieve. Its introduction is premised on a dual needs, that is to strengthen the House in what it does and how it is House in what it does and how it is In terms of context, 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 light of what was said in that debate. However, the genesis of the bill 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, introduced into this House by the noble Lord, Lord steel of liquid. Other half of the campaign for an effective second chamber, a body was found it through my noble friend the late Lord McCormack. It had four main provisions which constituted the Manifesto campaign.

It put the House of Lords appointments commission on a statutory basis and the by-elections for Hereditary Peers, it allowed Piers to retire and it provided to peers who had committed a serious criminal offences to be expelled from membership of the House. It was debated and twice in 2007 and enjoyed wide support. And because of opposition from a small minority of peers, were not able to make progress with it, as it stood. We were though, able to get enacted too with the provisions, enabling peers to retire, and removing those who had committed serious offences, through the House of Lords Reform Act, 2014.

Introducing a Private Members' Bill in the other place and facilitating its passage by the government. We now have the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill going through Lordship's House. That means that there is only one provision of the steel bill that is in effect unfulfilled, that is putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, on a statutory basis. For me, this bill constitutes basis. For me, this bill constitutes The bill focuses on statutory basis. The basis is strong but even more so by the Hereditary Peers Bill.

And acting that built means there will be no way to become a peer independent of the Prime Minister. My contention is that this bill has to become joined with the Hereditary Peers Bill your -- Hereditary Peers Bill. Those who have opposed the Hereditary Peers Bill for giving too much power and patronage to the Prime Minister need to explain what they would do to restrain that power. Putting HOLAC on a statutory basis protects this. It can be argued that no Prime Minister would get rid of HOLAC but the point is that they could.

It could be argued that no Prime Minister would act upon recommendation of HOLAC but they could. The point is not just quality-control but fundamental to my argument, 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 rather like what we've seen with the other 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 the debate on the bill. Concerns were raised that putting the appointments process and statute opened the prospect of the judiciary vehicle. I therefore introduced an Ulster close -- clause. This is exceptional. It is justified in the context of the measure. It is not a qualified provision of the debate. The clause meets the concerns raised by the noble Lord in the earlier debate.

He can't 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 recommend against putting people forward then the Prime Minister cannot put forward that name for two years. It is not a bar, the name can be resubmitted, however, it forces the Prime Minister to reconsider someone who is not just suitable at the time.

Second, the bill enshrines the court principles that are widely endorsed by members of the house in terms of the size and composition of the House. That is that the house should be no larger than the House of Commons, that no one party should enjoy an absolute majority in at least one fifth of the house should comprise of crossbench peers. These are provisions that enable the house to do what it does well. We are two largely recognised -- we recognise that we need to reduce our numbers.

Size is relative issue when it comes to fulfilling our functions, including scrutiny. It works to persuade the house to accept the provisions of the 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 are bringing forward, ensuring the significant proportion of the house is independent, contributes to the independence of the house and provides a route for people who served in public office to join the house.

These, in effect, constitute goals for the Prime Minister. Provides a core organising framework. Thirdly, bill provides that those nominated for membership must meet criteria and demonstrate a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House. In the light of the report of the designated powers committee, it has been -- attention has been drawn to this. When the bill was debated in this. 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 a job effectively and in fact 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. Generating guidance to what constitutes conspicuous merit is not in my view the most onerous of tasks. Essentially requiring those nominated to show what they've contributed by way of experience or professional achievement.

The experience may not be earthshattering but made by its nature be distinctive. I'm not opposed to generating a different wording. The key point is establishing a clear threshold of merit. Number four, there is the need for transparency, requiring those party leaders putting forward names for peerages to inform HOLAC of the criteria process employed for making the nomination. Injecting the pressure of transparency is a further means of enhancing public trust in the process. When we debated the bill last term, that then leader of the opposition, the baroness of Basildon, expressed doubt at this provision, yet the government haven't conceded much of the principal by publishing citations for recommendations.

This bill serves to push a little further in a way that serves to tackle in a way that serves to tackle public senses. -- census. The core reason for this is to establish the purpose of the nomination. It is necessary for the house to maintain its claim to legitimacy, both in terms of how members arrive but also through the work that they do. This house contributes to good law because of the unique combination of membership and procedures that distinguish it from the other place.

It fulfils functions that House of Commons might 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 the in this country. -- Of the law in this country. However, the public derive their view of this house not promoted does but from how members are selected and how some behaved. Enacting this bill will enhance the work of the house through bribing -- bringing members in through a process.

There is clear public support for nominations to be taken out of the hands of party leaders and given exclusively to HOLAC. The Wacom Commission recommended that most beers be recommended by HOLAC -- nominated by HOLAC. If we don't make changes now, more radical reform beckons. This debate gives the house the opportunity to send the house the opportunity to send out a clear signal as to the need of the reform of the nomination process and the recognition that changes 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 the prime minister was held accountable in any meaningful way 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 criticism.

The Minister would remain the sole person responsible for submitting nominations but he or she would work in a process designed to ensure that those nominated were and seem to be highly qualified. The other objection raised was that the bill would give too much power to hold a, body that is unelected are 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 appropriate -- in an inappropriate way, it would be held accountable.

The powers are limited and I believe proportionate. The only power would be one of restraint, requiring the premise 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. My Lords, we are now in March. This bill is not going to make it to the statute book unless the government facilitates its passage or takes over.

I'm 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 that we recognise public discontent with the process as it stands,. Doing nothing is not an option.
10:27
10:29
None Portrait Maiden Speech. Baroness Mattinson (Labour)
-

disappointed to learn from my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Baroness Smith who have been so helpful in Smith who have been so helpful in any other way that I wouldn't be able to use sites here this morning. So, please bear with me as I speak. So, please bear with me as I speak. I am new here but I'm not new to politics. My first election was politics. My first election was 1987. Then, along with the great Philip Gould, I worked on Labour's campaign.

Young Labour Party staffers I spoke to recently were amazed by this. Most had not even been born then and had heard quaint stories about the olden days. I can see that many of noble Lords here won't need any such thing. I've worked on almost every general election since. Often on what happened in between as well. Overall, of my career has been about anything, it's been about keeping the organisations that I've 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. These are not, as some characterise them, in my view, dark arts, but an effective way of creating an open, sustained and positive collection. And politics, let's face it, needs that positive connection. It's 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 trust politicians of any hue to tell the truth.

You might take heart from being slightly more trusted than estate agents. The grim statistics speak for themselves. Only 28% say they have any confidence in the House of Commons and 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 shouted, it is pointscoring, it is partisan and frankly, it is rude. Now, here in this place, I gather we like to do things differently. Certainly, from what I've seen so far, noble Lords are nothing if not courteous.

But the same poll revealed the confidence was 8% lower than in the comments, just 20%. This is not something we can afford to ignore. If people lose faith in solutions, our democracy weakens and a week democracy loses legitimacy. A recent poll suggested that more than half poll suggested that more than half of generations -- Gen Z voters would rather be ruled by a dictator who does not bother with elections. Democratic institutions are facing the biggest sustained attack since the Second World War.

This is urgent. It harder for us here than it is in the other place. There, they are accountable to an electorate every few years and that focuses the mind. We are going to have to work a lot harder on building that positive connection. Like my noble friend Baron Chapman, I'm from Darlington. I often ask myself what on earth would Darlington think? We must keep asking that question and we must How were appointed here and crucially how the public perceives crucially how the public perceives It is 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. Getting on for 70% of the public strongly supporting this move. That must be our main focus in reform. But there is also a lot that we can do to shine a light on excellent work that is done here, every day, day in, day out. Two thirds say they know little or nothing about what happens here and that is on us. It is why we need to shake things up and transformer reputation and performance.

I think there is a lot at stake, but I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much looking forward to playing my own role here, in the future, thank you. It is my great pleasure, my lords, to follow my noble friend, lords, to follow my noble friend, Baroness Mattinson we expected that we would have this morning an we would have this morning an excellent maiden speech and we will not be disappointed, because of the content, as well as other delivery content, as well as other delivery lived up to expectations and I would like to congratulate my noble friend.

As it happens her speech is entirely in line with much of what entirely in line with much of what was being said by my noble friend, he is my noble friend from university days, Lord Norton, in relation to reputation. Although my noble friend, Baroness Mattinson, Io ho debt of gratitude. Her entrance to the wider political ENIAC was in 1987. She said she didn't engage in the dark arts. I remember she was working with someone who did. Who now of course is our ambassador, in Washington.

I Ojo one, because I entered the House of Commons, in 87, with the largest majority, I ever got over 24,000. And I never matched it again, so thank you very much
10:35
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
indeed. In my noble friend's speech indeed. In my noble friend's speech and in Lord Norton speech, both talked about the reputation of politics and the way in which people see us. Both in parliament and outside. And the critical nature of outside. And the critical nature of the threat to democracy. And so the way in which we conduct ourselves. And that is true in terms of young And that is true in terms of young people. I did a citizenship class, earlier this week, with the school and discovered that none of the 28 young people actually read a newspaper.

Only six of them ever watched, regularly, the evening news. But over half of them had actually been, either deliberately, or by algorithm, affected by Andrew Tate. We have a major problem. We here, in parliament, have got to set an example. I know, but talk on the previous occasions supporting my noble friend, Lord Norton, that the tortures and not the hair is the way in which we conduct ourselves -- the tortures. And when the tortures get shot, rather than the hair, I have shot, rather than the hair, I have to say we are in difficulty.

Have to say had the Grocott proposals been supported, by the whole of this House. And it was by the majority. The historic and Israeli way of doing things, from the Conservative benches might have achieved a different outcome, to the way we are dealing with at the moment. This morning, I just want to say on this bill, transparency, clarity, support for the reputation of having people nominated to this House in a way that is understandable and justifiable is really important. And so, of course, is the intent of the bill to reduce the numbers and to no greater than the House of Commons.

I think if my noble friend the chief whip will forgive me. I don't think you will. I think there is a cunning plan and the cunning plan is that we are kept here until the early hours of the morning, until the numbers dropped, by the Grim Reaper. I think it is time, even within our self- regulation we got a grip. There is not a trade union leader in Britain that would put up with the way we do things, in terms of timetabling.

It is time now to take on board both of the first speeches, here this morning and get the reputation and politics back on track.
10:37
Baroness D'Souza Portrait Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
Never stop talking about ourselves, to ourselves. I do congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton on the securing of the second reading of this will add bill. I would like to touch on three aspects. The first significant amendments to the House of Lords Appointments Commission agreement, to include the criteria number, willingness and capacity, to serve and contribute to 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 nominated bodies, be they political parties, or other organisations, to submit. Along with the nomination procedures and criteria, involved in the initial selection of potential peers. This point, my Lord, to the elimination of those individuals who may only offer their donor credentials, rather than suitability and all conspicuous merit. The House of Lords can be no larger than the House of Commons, it imposes on the Prime Minister an obligation to be mindful of the numbers 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 renewed effort on the part of the group leaders to ask contributors to retire. The non-contributors to retire. And as a Lord McDonald presently said, in his speech, in November, 2022, or discussed in this bill. A lack of strength in numbers that might cause a future Labour government to feel justified in occluding and introducing stricter mechanisms.

This would be known to be true. While many of these changes do not require primary legislation, what 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 certainly a more justifiable chamber. However, these changes are due require the willingness of the government of the day and in particular the Prime Minister to relinquish a measure. 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 the current and future prime Ministers will feel bound to nominate new peerages, very sparingly, with the new HOLAC criteria in mind. So, my lords, this second attempted to adopt a modest, practical and effective bill is once again before us and it is to be hoped that it might go significantly further, this time around.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to speak in this debate and not only because of the privilege of hearing from my noble friend, Baroness Mattinson, who I am sure the Conservatives fear, because sure the Conservatives fear, because of her incredible knowledge about, about the thinking and behaviour of about the thinking and behaviour of the voters. Also of course to be the voters. Also of course to be able to support the bill, bought by Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I now have the privilege with whom I now have the privilege of cochairing the campaign effective second chamber.

Indeed, much work, as he is described, has already been done by that campaign, not under my watch, before then under his tutelage, along with Lord McCormack, much missed in this parish. The bill today has been here before, as we have heard. But without the then government support. Interestingly, the Norton bill was in some ways a juggling of attention along with other bills, by my noble friend, Lord Grocott. To end the hereditary by-elections, which the then Conservative government refused to support.

Although I now see that they now think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps the Boris Johnson can no longer nominate peers, some are not entirely to the idea of HOLAC. They might receive the wisdom of today's bill. And Russia is support. -- And a rush to its support. The purpose of the bill has been a welcome elaborated by sponsor. I want to do one thing which is to underline the importance
10:42
10:43
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Portrait Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Conservative)
-
-
I want to begin by festival congratulating the noble Baroness Mattinson on her most accomplished speech, this morning. We are old friends and colleagues, in another place and although we have different political views, we look forward very much to hearing more from her, in the period to come. I also want to thank my noble friend, Lord Norton for the way he introduced this bill. I'm afraid I have to say I do not support the bill and I will explain why.

When the House, some years ago, debated the Burns report, I was one of the few members who spoke against the recommendations. And that was because it was proposing that the House of Lords, an unelected House should decide on the House and on the size and composition of itself. I thought this was fundamentally wrong. I had the same objection before us today. It is proposing to take away, from the Prime Minister, the powers to the Prime Minister, the powers to appoint members of this House.

It would be the last word of who sits and who does not sit in this House would rest with the members of the House of Lords appointments commission. Not the elected House of Commons, not the elected government, not the elected Prime Minister, but the unelected HOLAC. Now, this is absolutely no criticism of the members of HOLAC, who as far as I can tell are of unimpeachable integrity and they are wise and experienced. But they are not elected. The bill sets out to criteria, on the face of the bill.

One of which is a conspicuous merit. I know my noble friend said he was not minded for that particular form of words. I looked at the word merit in the dictionary, which is defined as excellence. Of course, if we were looking for excellence in nursing, then Baroness Watkins would pass with flying colours. If we were looking at media, Baroness Kidron would pass with flying colours. I'm not quite sure how such a woolly definition, I'm not sure why we would shouldn't have people in the House of inconspicuous merit of as well.

I returned to my call point which is I cannot accept that the members of this House should be appointed by unelected people, however great and good they are. however great and good they are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I start by declaring my interest as a whole like-nominated beer. I want to speak about the impact of want to speak about the impact of want to speak about the impact of the whole of process on those oh -- those of us who applied through it. Applying through HOLAC is very much Applying through HOLAC is very much like applying for a job. You articulate your suitability at interview. The panel has to be interview. The panel has to be convinced not only by suitability but by your capacity and understanding of the house and your
10:46
Baroness Bull Portrait Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
-
understanding of the house and your role as a. It doesn't make us better or worse peers but it does shape expectations in the sense that membership is a privilege but also a job. But the key point I want to raise is criteria and specifically the clause allowing for additional criteria with regard to the diversity of the UK population. Now, 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.

I understand this to mean not just religious and ethnic diversity but socio-economic and geographic diversity as well. We want this house to include younger peers, peers who come from all parts of the country, from different faiths, ethnicities and socio- economic groups. And we want them to attend on a regular basis. Without some creative thinking, this aspiration might remain just that. The combined effect of our procedures and systems and the London oratory market militates against the ambition to include people from outside London and the south-east, particularly those from younger or lower socio-economic groups.

Members are not only subject to the exorbitant cost of overnight stay stays. They can't be at home to meet family or care obligations. meet family or care obligations. Is we risk having to choose between socio-economic diversity, age, regional representation and attendance. London based schoolteacher could make it work. It's hard to imagine how a 35-year- old schoolteacher from Bolton could actively participate holding down her job. -- While holding down her job. The house already includes peers from outside London but the size of the sample group is small.

Life Peers have managed this conundrum since 1958 but times have changed. Without radical thinking about 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 might have the opposite effect. The final point in the minutes I don't have left is the potential for HOLAC to fulfil a schools -- a skills audit over a fixed period to assess what skills the house will lose with the departure of the hereditary peers and actively recruiting a new number to bring those skills to the house.

In many cases, departing peers would be the strongest candidate and they would join in a transparent and open process. It might uncover some brilliant new peers. Its real value would be that it has the continued effectiveness and reputation of the house. That is the intent of this bill and it should underpin all of our efforts to reform this house and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

its membership. I raised to agree with large

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I raised to agree with large urban and congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent maiden Baroness on her excellent maiden speech. I'm very aware of her political expertise. We welcome her political expertise. We welcome her political expertise. We welcome her I do have some questions on this bill, which restrict the prime ministers ability to appoint peers with an effective size restriction. It doesn't impose the same restraint on the commission, which could dominate unlimited numbers to this house, effectively restricting the prime ministers capacity to keep it under 650.

There is a minimum size of 20% but not the maximum. Why is that? Strangely, the bill that excludes four out of the nine provisions. Why is that? This is a political house and politics determine our members. Why should an unelected, opaque committee run by the elite to perpetuate the elite be
10:51
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
allowed to veto those elected by the PM to get that -- get to that PM to get that -- get to that position. This is how it will be seen by the public. And although I wholeheartedly approve of a mechanism to ensure that Your Lordships' House contains people who Lordships' House contains people who are -- remain committed to work in the house, I don't believe the bill achieves it. All it requires is that achieves it. All it requires is that nomine sees two nominees Matt -- nominees must show a capacity to nominees must show a capacity to contribute.

As if anyone would say they don't have the willingness or capacity. I chair for charities and I'm on the board of others. I am a treasurer. I have an 82% voting record. I also have concerns over record. I also have concerns over the veto the committee would have over the PM's choice. There is one case which I happen to know about more than cause -- more than most. I would feel very uncomfortable if unelected people could overall the elected Prime Minister of this country.

-- Overrule the elected Prime Minister of this country. What does can specialist medical domain? As we discussed in the bill this week, is that people who just served well in their job, be at the Commons, judiciary, business? I would argue not. I would argue that anyone who is to be elevated must show they have contributed to society over and above their paid salary day job. That doesn't seem to be envisaged in this bill. Most important thing, they must show they are able to contribute in areas where greater contribution is needed.

Then the bill allows the commission itself to propose additional criteria without any approval for Parliament from Parliament or government. -- Approval from Parliament our government. It should remain with our Prime Minister and other political leaders. The issue of judicial review is adequately explained by Lord Howard. I welcome reform but I do not believe this bill addresses the real issues we face in this house. face in this house.
10:54
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
, in my view, , in my view, is , in my view, is clear, proportionate and gives HOLAC powers which I believe it should have possessed when first established. In possessed when first established. In the very short time I have, I shall speak to a couple of challenges this bill engages. First, I thank and congratulate their lives -- Lord Loutham. Your Lordships' House has been criticised as unrepresentative but one way in which it made its British society and the economy is that it has suffered from gross inflation.

Class 3 stipulates that the Prime Minister when recommending new Life Peers must have regard to the principle of the membership of the House of Lords, must be no larger than that of the other plays as well as other measures ensuring political balance. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. This measure is a step towards rationing the number of ornaments to legislative process. Clauses 2 and legislative process. Clauses 2 and seven amplify the interaction of the Prime Minister of the day.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the noble Lord Hennessy's good chaps theory of government. The notion of conventions being predicated by those on top of government being relied upon to behave appropriately. The decision by a previous premise to overwrite HOLAC strengthens this argument. I understand the concerns of those concerned that HOLAC will have prerogative powers. Given that the two chief criteria by which such a refusal might be made, conspicuous merit and a willingness and capacity to contribute to the House of Lords, I don't think these measures will increase public confidence in the process by which appointments are made meaningfully will delete prime made meaningfully will delete prime ministerial power.

It's rare that I venture into football analogies in Your Lordships' House. I see this improved HOLAC something analogous to VA are. The Prime Minister has made a clear and obvious error in nominating someone unfit, hollow gives the prime minister a chance to think again. The name can then be resubmitted after a two-year period. There are other edits that this bill possesses but mindful of time, I shall resume my seat and allow other noble Lords to continue to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When I was a member of the European Parliament, I was canvassing one day and I came across a man who had a concern about speed
10:56
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
a man who had a concern about speed bumps. I said, I will tell you what do, I will get you the leader of your council. I left the two of them together and then the leader of the council came up to me and said, I have sorted him out. I said, what are you going to do about the speed bumps? He said, now, I got him to bumps? He said, now, I got him to vote for us. I say county but it's really highways authority.

There we were, representing three tiers of government. We couldn't begin to address the simple 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 that there ballot -- where they mark their ballot and what happens. What sentences courts can impose, where we can drill for oil, can disrupt the children be excluded from class on what terms, and what terms can someone be legally departed from this country? These are no longer decisions made by anyone accountable to the rest of the country.

We have this myth that somehow when people are appointed to these expert bodies, their prejudices and assumptions disappear and they become magically wise and disinterested by virtue of being appointed. That is not true. It is not true of HOLAC either. I have to say, I very much welcome the Secretary of State has just said about not just abolishing the large bureaucracy at the top of the NHS but this being part of a broader democratisation process. I hope all of us will support the government in that endeavour.

How can we say that one of the two legislative chambers should be appointed by a bunch of good chaps without any direct oversight by the population questioning whether a, who appoints HOLAC? Who is the custodian? At the moment, appointed by the Prime Minister. The whole purpose, if I Minister. The whole purpose, if I understand it, is to try and take away that power from the executive. Presumably, they would have to be some different method of appointing them. How are we going to do that? It seems to me the only fair way of ensuring an appointments mechanism that is genuinely fair is to elect HOLAC.

If we're going to do that, why not go the whole way? Why not elect your Lordships chamber as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I praise Lord Alton for his perseverance on the subject. I his perseverance on the subject. I spoke Second Reading on 18 November, and in privileged to do so again. Once again, his timing is exemplary. Once again, his timing is exemplary. The previous debate to face in the wake of a previous prime minister's wake of a previous prime minister's rather generous showering of new peers on this chamber. It has been peers on this chamber. It has been referred to on more than one referred to on more than one occasion as long bodies.

-- Boris. I speak as somebody who is a hereditary peer of clearly inconspicuous merit somebody who is professionally advice on appointments for 31 years as a head hunter. Putting boards and
11:01
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Much like constructing a jigsaw, each piece is slightly different. I also chair of fairly active nominations and governance committee. -- Nominations and governance. If we look at this house does best, it is simple. It is scrutiny and committee work. In House of Commons, it's all about numbers and getting your legislation through or opposing the other side through or opposing the other side through thick and thin. And House of Lords, it's more about getting it right. And getting it right sometimes means losing a vote.

And sometimes means losing a vote. And 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 thoughtful and strategic approach to If you look at the 30 new colleagues announced on the government side, in December, 22 with them, in other words 73% are a combination of ex- members of Parliament, ex-members of trade unions, or leavers of the union and six have worked with a former party.

I know won't question their collective or individual merits. Indeed as Thomas Simmons said, on 5 December, it is four party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords, when nominating individuals for appointments. Is this a sufficiently thoughtful and strategic way of building the ability of this House to do what it does best. And I do to do what it does best. And I do think we should use the opportunity given by the Reform to look more broadly at the bigger picture.

Justification, versus assertion is indeed a good basis on which to proceed. Clearly this bill is a stalking course and a very good one for thinking about appointment list, a rather extraordinary institution, as part of a broader debate about reform. I urge the Government to co-opt it and assist the noble Lord, Lord Norton in nudging us bravely into the second quarter of the 21st

**** Possible New Speaker ****

century. I too would like to add my voice, once again, in support of this bill. once again, in support of this bill. I think it is a useful measure to enhance the effectiveness and credibility of this House. And can I credibility of this House. And can I say, in passing that I really enjoyed the maiden speech of enjoyed the maiden speech of Baroness Mattinson. She will make a huge contribution to the work before
11:03
Lord Janvrin Portrait Lord Janvrin (Crossbench)
-
-
huge contribution to the work before us. I welcome this debate, this morning, for three reasons. Firstly, the merits of the case for this bill, which were well spelt out by Lord McNaughton, this morning. It is aimed at an increasing public trust, in the process, by which members are appointed to this House. The measure enjoys widespread support, in this House, amongst constitutional experts and from the public at large. Lord Norton has a listen to comments made on his previous draft bill and has produced a revised version and it deserves considerable attention and further consideration.

Secondly, I want to use this opportunity to urge the Government to deliver on a manifesto commitment, to continue with the program of a wider reform of the House of Lords. It is not enough for the hereditary, the Hereditary Peers bill to be the end of the story. There is so much more to be done. Of course it will take Parliamentary time, but it is a time are well spent, if it results in better lawmaking and greater trust in Parliament.

And this brings me to my last point. I, like others, want to put this proposed reform in the wider context, which is on all of our minds. Our democracy is under threat, as never before. Externally from a radically unstable, international environment and internally from the erasure in public trust in democratic institutions. We can and we will respond to these challenges. One option 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that process. It is a pleasure to follow that noble Lord and can I immediately congratulate my noble friend on the excellent maiden speech. I look forward to many more contributions. I write and to give broad support for this bill it is the third day
11:05
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
for this bill it is the third day this week we have debated in effect this House. As a deputy Speaker of spoken and listen to some interesting speeches. This bill is about the future. When the history is written, if you don't mind myself saying so, the Reform in the 20s, I think my noble friend, Lord Grocott, the noble Lord, Lord Burns and of course the noble Lord, Lord Norton course the noble Lord, Lord Norton will have a place to play in this.

I speak as a fellow member of the campaign for effective second chamber. I think our current system of appointments is widely thought to be to protect the reputation of the House and hence the credibility of its work. We are, after all, in My Lords, despite the surroundings of this building we are workshop and not a museum. In the time available adjustment to make a couple of brief points. I listen to an exchange earlier this week between the noble Lord, Lord Butler and the noble Lord Andersson of Ipswich about whether or not, putting it on a statutory basis would make it justiciable.

I'm convinced partly by the exchange and partly by clause 3 that that would not be a problem for the future. I think it is right for HOLAC to give advice, but if I may say so I still think it is right for the Prime Minister to refuse it. What this bill does do is strengthen the position of HOLAC, vis-a-vis the Prime Minister and I do not blame prime Ministers. I do not think there is anyone here became a Prime Minister would not be tempted by the power of patronage and for every person you do appoint, you tend to get people hovering about doing what you want anyway.

I look at this bill in the context of the sort of British political and constitutional history. The struggle for the franchise. The struggle for Parliament over the Monica now the Executive. We have fought Kings in the past. I remember in the last debate we had in November 2022, our noble and nearly departed Lord Judge made a wonderful speech about this, which is well worth listening to. -- Dearly departed. This bill has its place in the story of reform. It may be that the government does 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. I would just like to say that, on that basis, this is a bill that is worth debating and it is worth passing today, so that the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can move forward. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Wilkinson said noble Lord, Lord Wilkinson said about this bill. It is pretty essential to our democracy. democratic principles, Parliament
11:08
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
democratic principles, Parliament makes the rules and the negative carry them out and enforce them and run things. The Prime Minister is the head of the Executive, the first Minister of the Executive. Also though, because of accidents of history he is the king's adviser. All the powers at the prime and so has, the old prerogative powers of the Crown, before the Magna Carta. Some were taken away, because we did not want those things. We were left with the Crown, war, treaties and appointing laws, to create new peerages.

It is a relic of the past. People have said, rubbishing some of the issues about the hereditary peerage bill, that it is OK and it is a democratic, because it goes to democratically elected prime Minister, who recommends and then to the King, they should be elected. And appointed and brought to the Lords. The trouble with this is that, I think of the 1976 Lord Hill shipment described our system as it being an elective dictatorship. For five years, or thereabouts, the Prime Minister has a lot of absolute power and we have a very little control over it.

It isn't really quite as democratic as one things. This bill would allow a certain amount of parliamentary, control, over that right of the Prime Minister, dates back historically for hundreds of years. After they have been elected. When they are may no longer be subjected to as much parliamentary control, as there is. Very often governments are not elected by the majority of the government anyway and issues like that. This bill goes a long way to addressing that and you can toy around with things.

I shall stop the bill, I think we should go in and we can move forward from there. It also addresses the big concern that Parliament and the Lords will lose its independent voice. I think it is a brilliant way of ensuring that the crossbench element, the element and members of the public who aren't interested, or do not have the mindset to become politicians, which can be very different from people have technical mindsets, or particularly interest, is still maintained in Parliament on some level.

I think that is essential and this bill goes a long way to resolve it. If the Government were to add these provisions, to the hereditary peerage's bill, go some way to forcing the Privy Council oath, given that the departure of the remaining Hereditary Peers will be linked to democratic reform of the Lords. Personally I would insert it there and we do the whole thing in one go and I and the other departing hereditaries will be much happier with it. It also causes a good point, raising the other debate was that the problem of judicial review.
11:11
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to oppose this bill, both on principle and because I think it is piecemeal in nature and poorly piecemeal in nature and poorly drafted and pernicious. It fails to address important questions. Will it widen participation, make this House widen participation, make this House more democratic, more efficient and effective a more inclusive? Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing will embed a semi-permanently and already embed a semi-permanently and already closed an opaque system of appointment and result in the establishment of an unaccountable, undemocratic and self-perpetuating body, whose members share the same metropolitan viewpoint and hostility to those who take a contrary opinion.

It will also weaken at the reputation and the legitimacy of this House and more fundamentally undermine the prime Ministers long established institutional prerogative right to appoint Piers on a case-by-case basis. In a system, which is open and which guarantees accountability, to Parliament, to his or hers constituents, to the media and others. HOLAC adjudicating on propriety is one thing, but suitability is a step too far. The bill also continues at the regrettable trend of the accretion of power and decision-making, away from elected politicians towards quangos and more recently, inter alia activist judges.

Spreading occasion on the idea that HOLAC is a model of success. But is it? Whilst model of success. But is it? Whilst in a laws of cause are appointed by HOLAC are noted for their knowledge, skills and experience and wisdom, they remain drawn from a narrow educational, social, political, economic and demographic cohort. Will we see a more working class men from Yorkshire, women, disabled people, women from South Wales. It is a myth as my noble friend, Lord Hannan says that any public body can be truly independent and impartial.

Every sense year thinking person is subject to predisposition, to prejudice and assumption. And coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, by Lord Leighton. The noble Lord Hennessy is a good chap theory was never about heavy-handed legislation but was about enduring conventions. It is a value judgement, whether they be observed, or not. Finally the bill contains a number of clauses, which are deeply worrying. The words, as are deemed appropriate. There is a lot of heavy lifting in a clauses 5, seven and eight.

I'm particularly concerned about the Ulster clause, and clause 10, on disability, which I believe is unprecedented and problematic and I think will be struck out at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee stage, very potentially -- ouster clause. We all know that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all know that this legislation, to a certain extent legislation, to a certain extent arose from one hard case, under the premiership of the Boris Johnson, in 2020 and that is regrettable. Because, as we know, my Lords, hard case is a very likely to make a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bad law. I support this bill and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support this bill and the process of making HOLAC statutory, but I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord Jackson, but don't have time to explain why. There are issues that affect this House, which are more important, in my view, before we consider the questions of election, age of members and other similar matters. The excellent maiden speech gave us a great deal to think about and to reflect upon and I'm very grateful that we have had that.

The reputation of this House, in my view is a much affected by its size. We are the largest House, in the world, apart from China. I don't think that goes down with the public, all that well. And why are we so large? It is due to the prerogative and the appointment, by successive prime Ministers, over the years that I've been in this House, which is quite a long time, some of them bringing in 200, or more than 200 members, during a period of six or eight years.

There is no requirement, in a someone of being invited to become a member of this House, to make any sort of contribution and no requirement to attend. Isn't that extraordinary, if you think about it. So we have those that do not attend. I asked for some statistics from the library. And I understand that between nought and 9%, 127 members, last year and
11:16
11:18
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble Lady Baroness Makinson -- Baroness Mattenson on her maiden speech. Within the house, there are radical reformers, there are those who support only modest and incremental reforms and a few members of the House who could hardly be regarded as reformers at all. The principles of this bill have appeared today to generally have the support of all but the third group I referred to. The objections of the noble Lords appear to be based on far greater trust in the people who become Prime Minister I and my party was in the first group of radical reformers.

We would go much further than this bill. Moved to an elected chamber has been our stance since Liberal governments had to find general elections on the issue of House of Lords reform before the First World War. But being radical reformers does not put us on the opposing side of serious attempts to improve the reputation and the effectiveness of the House. The urgency of electing the kind of reforms proposed in this bill has increased over time since the House of Lords appoints Commissioner was created in 2000 -- House of Lords Appointments Commissioner.

Since then, a scandal erupted. I was personally thanked by the former Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner, known as Yates of the Yard, for information I provided to him about how peers would be nominated and how political parties recorded nominations. Exactly 100 years after the George's selling of peerages was supposed to be banned by the Prevention of Abusers Act. The links between major party donors legally allowed to give unlimited sums of money and the question of new peerages continues to cause controversy.

But it's not just cash that causes controversy over our appointments. The scale of them, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to the condition of Long Boris. I think I know what he means. There is a lack of transparency. Sometimes the appropriate this -- appropriateness causes genuine concern. The lack of effective scrutiny backed by investigatory powers and the present powers of the Prime Minister to simply override objections of HOLAC make it harder for some peers to be seen as were the 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 will 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. But, my Lords, such controversy is unthinkable in the 21st-century. Therefore, there is absolutely no constraint on the Prime Minister acting as adviser to the king.

It has been suggested that prime ministers were 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 last. 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 the nominations to this place.

Has anyone here ever seen specific references to a person being made a in a candidate election address or party broadcast or a press conference? Now, my Lords, we do not have real scrutiny over prime ministerial nominations, especially when objectives -- objections from HOLAC can be overruled. Only weapon is sometimes ridicule. I recall the pity response of the noble Lord Lord Forsyth who is not in his place, talking about Boris Johnson's appointments and saying he was reminded of Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate.

My Lords, that was only prevented by the assassination of Caligula. How can prime ministers be held accountable for their appointments when they have had to be finished rated by their own party before facing a general election -- defenestrated. We should not propose modest reforms because we believe they might not go far enough. There is too much power in an executive that is not regulated and not enough with legislature. Who should be chosen by those directly affected by the laws it passes.

Before Lord Kennedy replies to the debate, I would like to remind him of the words of the noble Lady Baroness Smith of Basildon, when she said on 22 November, 2022. She said that we are broadly in agreement with where we are seeking to get to, with occasional differences on the right way to achieve that. 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 unnecessary and worthwhile

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform to take place. My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for securing the second friend for securing the second reading of this bill and thank you very much for setting out his arguments with such clarity. Also arguments with such clarity. Also congratulate the noble Baroness on her interesting and informative maiden speech and wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness that we should promote the excellent work
11:25
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
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. House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, currently provides non-statutory safeguards within the process for appointments to this House. It has a clear but limited role. It recommends nonparty political members for the cross benches, ensuring that this house benefits from independent expertise and to provide betting advice nominations for life peerages.

Crucially, its recommendations are advisory and do not bind Prime Minister. A number of noble Lords have emphasised the modest nature of changes within this bill but my noble friend spell actually proposes variant -- significant changes. This includes making its recommendations finding and placing it on a statutory basis. Also places greater powers of nomination to this unelected chamber in the hands of an unelected committee, as my noble friend so effectively highlighted, as well as quitting de facto limit on the number of peers that could be created.

While I deeply respect my noble friend's intentions, I must express my concerns regarding the directions 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 messaging direct malicious and litigious to claim -- malicious and litigious to claim.

This was mentioned by noble friends. Instead of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, HOLAC would become about the subject to judicial review, first to justify its reasoning in court, constrained by legal precedent and bounty operate not least in judgement but within the narrow confines of the manageability. -- Monster -- demonstrability. The Prime Minister's discretion would be second-guessed not in this house but in the courts. I appreciate that clause 10 seeks to make recommendations... I share my noble friend Lord Jackson was my concerns on this point.

And the courts should have no role in determining the membership of Your Lordships' House. This would run contrary to the principle of separation of powers. Clause 2 would strengthen the commission's role in the point and is process in a couple of key respects. The Prime Minister would be required to refer a name of an individual to the commission before recommendation before -- before recommending for a life period. Effectively, there would be a veto A change.

The Minister would be restricted in their ability to recommend life peerages and the power reinvested in an unelected and ultimately unaccountable body. The premonition does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role, scrutinising appointments and applying the propriety test. Crucially, just a minister who makes the decision. That balance matters. Of holder gets it wrong, if it misjudged as a candidate, the Prime Minister can correct it. Of the premonition gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and ultimately the judgement of the electorate.

This is a system that holds both the cheque. Of the Prime Minister is stripped of that will, HOLAC's decisions become final. There is no backstop, no political oversight, no democratic ability. This breaks a fundamental constitutional principle as Lord Butler emphasised so effectively earlier this week. The Prime Minister is the manic perspective adviser. It is not for an unelected commission to take that role. This point has been absolutely reinforced very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Chairman. Appointments to this house must be made by 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 described as conspicuous merit and a willingness and capacity to What constitutes conspicuous merit. How would it be measured? We have enjoyed a number of debate this week. These are subjective judgements and in a democracy, such judgement should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than 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 in your Lordships' House. It would no longer Lordships' House. It would no longer be a check but a gatekeeper. This bill claims to fortify the appointment process, by placing HOLAC on a statutory footing, yet at the same time stripped away one of the most fundamental principles of good governance, accountability. A grant HOLAC the power to block nominations for two years, but then it shields its decisions from judicial review.

This is not a dry technicality, it is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present the system balances expert scrutiny with a democratic accountability. HOLAC advises, the Prime Minister decides to stop the prime Minster presses ahead, against this recommendation, the commission ensures transparency, by informing Parliament. The checkers are there, the scrutiny is real and crucially it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee who is justified 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 new appointments, to your Lordships' House. My Lords, as my noble friend, Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Jackson of Peterborough made very clear, no advisory body is a truly neutral and objectivity is hard to achieve. HOLAC is no exception. It offers a judgement, not infallibility. Expanding its powers, creating a system and either accountable or impartial.

We must be wary of trading one former discretion to another. Especially when it moves further from democratic oversight is that the balance we have is not perfect, but it preserves the scrutiny and responsibility, in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of this House, not undermines it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I would like to 1st congratulate the noble Lord, on securing the second reading of his securing the second reading of his bill. He has shown persistence pushing forward this issue over the last few years and has led this debate with customary thought and debate with customary thought and consideration. Secondly, can I congratulate my noble friend, Baroness Mattinson on a wonderful maiden speech. I have known and maiden speech. I have known and worked with the honourable lady for many years and I look forward to hearing from her many more times.

hearing from her many more times. She made a great contribution to this House and I look forward to her deliberations in the years to come. As we have heard, this bill, put arrangements for the House of Lords Appointments Commission, in
11:35
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
Statuette, for the first time. The commission would maintain its role, nominating Crossbench Peers, to the nominating Crossbench 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 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 they where the commission has deemed they do not meet the suitability criteria.

The bill also stipulates considerations the Prime Minister must make when recommending a new peers, relating to the size and composition of the House. My Lords, a similar bill received support, in this House, back in 2022. But the context this time is a different, by the context of the Lord's previous builds on this topic. The Government agrees with the need to inform the appointment system and remains committed to a wider House of Lords reform. The question raised by the noble Lord, asked in his contribution.

We have an ambitious program of reform of this House, which he made an immediate start on. When the Nova Lord Rennard said he wanted to remind me of the worst. I was pleased they were not my words. When I think I can say to the noble Lords I do believe there is a desire for reform across the House that we have made a start in line with our manifesto commitments. Noble Lords are in no doubt concerned that the House of Lords, Hereditary Peers Bill is currently making its way through committee stage, in this House.

It would remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in this place. I do they recognise the contribution Hereditary Peers and made over many years. The point at Baroness Butler-Sloss and her contribution to date. Reforming the process of appointments to the second chamber will ensure the quality of new appointments and improve the national regional improve the national regional balance of your Lordships' House. But this bill represents a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities over the appointment system. That, as I will go on to outline risks undermining There is been much discussion about the Prime Minister's role in appointments to this House.

So, I would like, first, to address at the roles and responsibilities of the appointment system that the bill seeks to change. Constitutionally it is for the Prime Minister, as at the sovereign's principal adviser, to make recommendations, and individuals, pointed to this place. The Prime Minister, by convention, invites nominations from other political parties, who decide who is best placed to represent their party in the second chamber. The Prime Minister passes on the nominations, other party leaders, without comment, providing they meet the propriety checks was not this important point to note, he passes on without comment, to the sovereign.

As my noble friend Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent said, include committee stage, on the Hereditary Peers bill earlier this week. This is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament. Ultimately to the electorate. And it should be held to account, the political nominations they make in your Lordships' House. The House of Lords Appointments Commission advices of the Prime Minister on the propriety of individuals, nominated it to the party benches, in this place. This propriety of places important to the Prime Minister, as he discharges his duty recommending any peerages to the sovereign.

The commission also has an important role in nominating individuals to the crossbenches, as the nominations from party leaders, the Prime Minister's pass these on to the sovereign. The noble Lords Bill attempts to put in Statuette that the commission will judge political nominees, not only on their propriety, but also 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 Ministers and party leaders nominations to this place. This is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, and his contribution at Lord LEA, and many other noble Lords.

As I have set out, it is for the party leaders T give due consideration to the quality and suitability of new peers. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their nominations to displace macro. We cannot and should not expect the commission to take on this responsibility. And can I say that in my nearly 15 years of membership of this house, I have many great friends and all benches. We work with wonderful members of this House, we do great work in this House and before they came to this House.

I very much thank them for that. This bill will recommend a fundamental shift in appointments to this House. It risked undermining the democratic alliance of accountability that currently exists in the appointment process. Appoint Lord Sherwood made in his contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Norton spill, also requires the government and the prime Minister, considering on recommendations, the new peerages, should have regard to the fact that at least 20% of membership to this place should be a nonparty political. No party can have an absolute majority in the House of Lords and that membership should be no larger than the size of the House of Commons.

It also gives the commission, the ability to advise of the Prime Minister of reducing the size of the House. The House may be sympathetic to these principles, but the noble Lord has set out. I know that in recent years and no party has held an overall majority, in this place. Indeed, since removal of the majority of Hereditary Peers in 1999, no party has had more than 40% of the seats. Nor have the crossbenches been below 20%, in the chamber at this time.

But the Government shares at the concern regarding the size of the House. It has become too big. We have committed to reforming your Lordship's House, to achieve a smaller, more active chamber, which better reflects the country's servers. I know that many contributions from noble Lords and make this point, including Baroness D'Souza. Our manifesto commitment to set out how we intend to achieve that, by affording the appointments to this price, choosing a mandatory retirement age which will bring down the sides of the House and a participation requirement.

We have introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which will remove the right of the remaining Hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place, completing the work of the 1999 act. As I have said, we are in a very different position from when the noble Lords are first introduced this bill. The government of the day and now has a clear manifesto commitment for reforms to this place. And we have an ongoing dialogue to consider the options on how we can better implement these commitments, setting in Statuette requirements around the size and condition of the House given the commission of all advising reducing the size, cutting across of the dialogue on wider reforms of the House that the government is proposing.

Government has already taken the straightforward but important step to help The Rock Trust in the appointment process, introducing the parties must, as Baroness Finlay mentioned, find a citation when he is to be nominated. The citations are published on the gov.uk website, following anomini six successful appointment and order, providing greater clarity for order, providing greater clarity for the public why party leaders at shows your Lordships to your Lordship's House is that this will encourage political parties take greater responsibility for their appointments, which as I already said are set out for party leaders to decide and put forward.

It is right that we take the time to probably consider how we will inform the appointment system and the commission's role within it. As part of the wider standard landscape. The Prime Minister has made clear that these are committed to restoring trust in government, we are committed to keeping the ethics bodies under review and where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure that high standards of public life. The government has already demonstrated a willingness to strengthen the independent protections, within the existing standard landscape is not the Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the individual independent advisory standards, a investigation without requiring the prime Ministers consent.

We do not think that these proposals are right for the House of Lords appoint the commission of the wider appointment system, at this time. In conclusion, I would like to thank the noble Lord for raising these important issues and provoking a discussion on reforms to the House of Lords process. We know there is work to be done, to reform this House and we have the ambitious program of reforms to do just that. We are eager to maintain ongoing dialogue with your Lordship's House about the forms to the chamber.

We need to allow time to consider how best to implement our manifesto commitment, to reform the appointment system, as part of a wider program of reform. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler so eloquently set out during the committee stage of the hereditary peers bill, the suffering, the king, creates members of your Lordship's House. There must be somebody to advise him, it must be the democratically elected person that has to be the prime Minster. In the end the Prime Minister has to take responsibility.

The bill represents a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities of the appointment system that the Government can accept. The Government does not therefore, does therefore have reservations about the bill. Finally, can I say have huge respect for the Lord, his vision always thoughtful, challenging and considered. His role would help the government in further reforms to the cells.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I am congratulating the noble Baroness, Baroness Mattinson noble Baroness, Baroness Mattinson on her excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness, noted that the noble Baroness, noted that the public do not trust politicians, to tell the truth. Opinion polls show tell the truth. Opinion polls show that the public trust professors to tell the truth. I shall therefore tell the truth. I shall therefore 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 would deal briefly with those who take a contrary view. My noble friends, Lord Sherbourne and the Earl of Hurley may not appear dangerous radicals, but they are facto, that is, I'm afraid, what they are. If we do not make a modest change now, much more radical change will come later. And neither of my noble friends advanced alternatives to what I'm proposing, to deal with the problem that we have identified. My noble friends, Lord Jackson, got uncharacteristically one or two things wrong.

The bill predates the Johnson premiership, as explained in my opening speech was so clause 10 is not unprecedented again, as I explained in my speech. Baroness Finn did not explain why the Alston clause will not work in this clause, but apparently will work in calling My noble friend did not engage or come up with any alternatives to the
11:46
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
present system, which attracts criticism that we have heard from criticism that we have heard from peers in this debate. The assertion peers in this debate. The assertion that the Prime Minister 's ability and accountability for making and accountability for making nominations is built on thin ice. I nominations is built on thin ice. I want to digress onto the point about party leaders being elected when it party leaders being elected when it governments that are elected through elections. Party leaders are elected through their own parties.

The point I would make is to do with the actual accountability point. I'm about to write a chap there -- chapter in a book on a political fixer is. The Prevention of Abuses Act. There is not a 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. Some noble Lords have spoken as if we do.

We need to achieve public trust in that process. This bill is designed to make clear that we recognise that. As I tell my students, Private Members' Bill is do not normally make it to the statute book. Their value is in raising issues and getting them debated. They help bring issues on to the political agenda. This debate has achieved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that purpose. A bid to move. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill now be read a second time. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. About a move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

About a move that this bill be committed to a committee. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be committed to a committee. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Employment Rights Bill. The question is that this bill been a red for the first time. All been a red for the first time. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Change of business, second reading of the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill. Baroness
11:49
11:49
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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, 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 do 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 effective Israeli settlement, road -- roads and checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territories means that an independent state is no longer an independent state is no longer viable. The Israeli government seems intent on making this 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 noble Lady the Minister will support this.

But, if this is to be delivered, it becomes urgent to take that forward, list it becomes impossible with ramifications both for Palestinians and the long-term future security of Israel -- lest. Some say that recognition now would be seen as a reward for the Hamas terrorist who carried out the atrocities of October 7. Absolutely not. This would be the long overdue recognition of estate for the Palestinian people, not for a particular group. -- Recognition of particular group.

-- Recognition of a state. As the consul general in Jerusalem said, voices on both sides need encouragement, they need the hope of a political process. And S3 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 as well. Britain, of course, has a special responsibility.

The 1917 Balfour Accommodation was made here. He spoke about the civil 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 seek to freeze out those countries, most recently Norway and Ireland, have recognised Palestine. The former ambassadors state that 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.

It cannot be the case that an established state should be able to veto the recognition of a neighbour in their own territories. Neither can this be subject to negotiation and conditions. In 2019, Luxembourg called for the EU to recognise Palestine. The Foreign Minister said, recognising Palestine as a state would be neither a favour nor a carte blanche but a mere recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people to their own state. It would not be meant as -- against Israel but a measure intended to pave the way for a two- state solution.

In 2011, William Hague, then Foreign Secretary, stated that the United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including stated. Palestine was granted observer status at the UN general assembly in 2012. And 2014, the Commons voted for recognition with the noble Lady the Minister's support. Inputting that motion, Grahame Morris -- Grahame Morris in -- Grahame Morris soon -- Morrison... Alan Duncan as Minister concluded that recognition was the other half of a 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. " $$CAPITALISEIt is states that are recognised, not governments." 2070, this houses international relations committee stated that we should give recognition to recognising Palestine as a state as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution. It's my party's position to recognise Palestine. The noble Lord Lord Collins, as Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, stated repeatedly Labour's commitment to the two-state solution and thus in 2023, 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.

It is something with which Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary appeared to agree in early 2024. As 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 two-state solution. My right Welcomed the Foreign Secretary plasma comments come arguing that recognition should not wait for the final status agreement but should be part of efforts to achieve one. The Labour Party manifesto in 2024 stated that Palestinian statehood is the -- is the right of the Palestinian people.

It is that in the gift of any neighbour, and it 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 pre-1967 borders and the rights of Palestinian people to self- determination. The words are taken from the UN Council General assembly resolutions, specifying in the UN's terms what it means to be recognised as a state. Clause 1.2 specifies that pre-97 -- pre-1967 borders have that pre-97 -- pre-1967 borders have A full diplomatic mission in London.

Class 3 requires a Secretary of State to report to Parliament within three months of the passage of the act and steps to implement it. Very familiar. All in line with what other countries have done. Recognise according to the pre-1967 border and any change to that to be achieved through negotiation. For those who argue we cannot recognise estate without settled borders, we recognise Israel rightly but Israel itself does not declare its own borders. And did, it claims territory of other states. In Britain recognises -- and Britain recognised Israel without waiting for negotiations.

This is solely a bilateral issue between Britain and Palestine. Labour's stands when in opposition created the hope it would recognise Palestine. But hope for the Palestinians always seems to be over the horizon. So if we hear once again it isn't 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-2000's. It was a time when the rights of women 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 is into the women's hour. When is the women's hour? There isn't one, came the reply. Recognising two-state should have happened long ago. My short little bill seeks to rectify that. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read a second time. My Lords, may I congratulate Baroness Northover for bringing forward this bill and for setting forward this bill and for setting out the case in its favour so clearly and powerfully. The United clearly and powerfully. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility going back to the time of the mandate and we have to
12:00
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-
time of the mandate and we have to act upon that, and what we have to do, I believe, now is to work for a two-state solution. So many countries already recognise Palestine. 140/190 countries have done so. Sweden, Spain, Ireland, done so. Sweden, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia have done it. The two-state solution, as Baroness Northover said, has long been a Labour Party policy. It was in our manifesto. It was supported by the by Minister and 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. It is that phrase which has delayed progress Within Israel, there are support as well. There is a policy working group, who a few days ago look to our Prime Minister and President of France, urging immediate recognition. The policy working group consists of senior academics, former diplomats, policy analysts and human rights defenders. My Lords, the tragedy of October 7 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 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 share capital. I'm afraid the United States plan for Gaza is not only nonsensical but is setting the clock back. It is no acceptance in the region, and anyway, why should adjacent countries support thousands of Palestinians, who would then be forcibly removed? It doesn't make sense.

And the Palestinians have a right to their own territory, and I think the Americans recognise that. Earlier this month, there was an emergency meeting in Cairo, the president of Egypt said the establishment of a Palestinian state establishment of a Palestinian state was the only path to genuine peace. As is notable that both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have welcomed these proposals. My Lords, the only comment I would make is I hope the government would not wait

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the passing of the bill, we can act immediately. My Lords, it is a pleasure to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is always so courteous and clear in what he says. I'm afraid I do in what he says. I'm afraid I do disagree with him, and I do disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, a bill she has put Northover, a bill she has put forward. And I want to explain forward. And I want to explain briefly why. My Lords, we have to look at the situation on the ground.

Israel has been fighting for 18 Israel has been fighting for 18 months now. It is the longest what it has ever been involved in. It involves not just Gaza, it involves Lebanon, Syria, even Yemen and Iran. It has posed huge strains on Israeli in society and there is no end in sight. So, it is not surprising that
12:04
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
Israelis are sceptical of the land for peace concept and I think it has for peace concept and I think it has failed as a concept, most obviously, Gaza, and indeed only about 1/4 of Israelis now support the two-state solution. Equally importantly, as a PSR poll last autumn shows, only 39% of Palestinians support a two state solution. Now, this means a two solution. Now, this means a two state solution seems very unlikely state solution seems very unlikely to happen, that is the context 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, of course, that no such state exists on the ground.

There are no agreed borders or territory, as Baroness Northover pointed out. But that is not the only criteria relevant. Palestinians have very limited control of the territory, the good security reasons. There is no real ability to engage in interaction with other states. They have institutions riddled with anti- Semitism and corruption, and simply cannot govern. There is simply nothing approximating to a state. That is important because that is the basis for UK recognition of states. Now, in these circumstances, what is the point of recognition of Palestine? At best, it is acknowledgement of the concept of estate, a estate that doesn't exist.

At worst, it is just a form of international virtue signalling, or even a statement to Israel that we would be rewarding in some way, the Palestinians and the chaos and violence of October 7. I think the government is being sensible in saying the recognition can only come as part of a process which is working and which it can help. I'm tempted to think that is only another way of saying it is never going to happen. The problem is, 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.

My Lords, this country really should deal with reality as it is, rather than wishing things that are not going to happen. And that is what 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 they said Israelis and Palestinians, which I strongly suspect is not going to involve a two state solution in the near future, and meanwhile, by stopping pretending the gesture politics by those with no skin in the game can help in anyway in this.

And that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

why I oppose this bill. My Lords, I am speaking to give strong support to the second reading of the noble Lady, Baroness Northover's bill, one Palestinian statehood. Why so? Because without recognition of that statehood is recognition of that statehood is part of what has become known as a two state solution to the Palestine Israel conflict, there will be no lasting peace, justice or prosperity for the countries of the Middle
12:06
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
for the countries of the Middle East. And for any interim solution, which are currently under negotiation, such as those over Gaza, to prosper, there has to be a horizon for a long-term solution, which I would argue was a two-state one, however far away that horizon may be. As for what is sometimes known as " Thinking outside the box", for example the Trump Riviera ideas, those 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, defended the idea that the recognition of Palestinian statehood could only come at the end of a process which settled by negotiation the issues of territory, security, refugees, governance, and the status of Jerusalem. So long as it live, that was a realistic prospect, but he was assassinated for supporting a two state solution. And 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 our fellow European democracies. Our own government seems, to some extent, to move down that road. Now talks of the recognition of the Palestinian statehood in some undefined point in two-state negotiations. But that step is now in limbo, thanks to the refusal of the Israel government to contemplate any negotiations for a two state solution. The wife -- Although I salute those brave Israelis who have this week put their names to a position which is more favourable to a two state solution.

So, what sequence of decision-making, which does not simply consist of the recognition of Palestinian statehood, but goes beyond it, to achieve the recognition of Israel statehood by every Arab country in the Middle East, could be contemplated and have some chance of a time of being achieved? This could be realised by an international conference, bringing together all the Arab countries of the region, and a wide range of world powers to relaunch two-state negotiations. At that conference, all participants will 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 present arrangement. Negotiations on territories, security, refugees, governance, the status of Jerusalem, would then resume. But within the irreversible framework of two-state. The present bill could help to make that possible without transgressing the unacceptability of giving any governmental or security role to Hamas, following their horrendous breaches of international humanitarian law in October 2023, 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 like that in mind, this bill could be given an unopposed second reading, and I would very much like the noble Lady, the Minister, to address the route I have suggested that we might move towards that, when she comes to reply to this debate.
12:10
Lord Bishop of Gloucester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords. I declare an interest in that I am the patron of the charity Embrace of the Middle East and a regular visitor to the region. I last visited in June, particular Lee spending time in the West Bank. As Palestinians shared stories from the past and present, I was struck by the absence of hope, the absence of a vision for the future, the focus on simply trying to survive the present. It is poignant that today is the Jewish festival of pure rain, wonderfully marking the saving of the Jewish people, from annihilation.

And 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 apparent attack on Israel by Hamas, and 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. The Palestinians in the West Bank, their present is about surviving the intensification of military activity, increased house demolition, road blockages, massive inflation and poverty levels, along with the collapse of basic services.

Even in conversation with Christians, who will usually speak of hope, there was a palpable sense of struggle to contemplate what an earthly good future might look like. Not least the sense of being abandoned by international leaders, and the majority of the worldwide church. A well-known Christian pastor from Bethlehem commented to me that he no longer used the word me that he no longer used the word 'hope', except to reference Easter. As other noble Lords have noted, the government seems wedded to only recognising a Palestinian state, as a contribution to renewed peace processes.

But there is an absence of such a process. And no prospect of negotiations any time soon. So, the diplomatic stance simply reinforces the 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. My Lords, we have an American president who speaks of forcibly transferring millions of Palestinians from their home in Gaza.

In Israel, there is no major political party, arguing in favour of a negotiation to end the occupation. The festival celebrates courageous leadership, decision by this government on Palestinian statehood would send a clear signal to the Palestinian people that they can hope for a better future. And that they are recognised and supported by this country, as are the people of Israel. Given Britain's own troubling history on this matter, the UK carries responsibility to the Palestinian people do speak and act for an independent sovereign Palestine at peace with its neighbours.

Recognition is a vital step which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

must be taken now. My Lords, I declare my interest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of a British Jewish organisation supporting a political resolution to the Israeli- resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. As a proud Palestinian conflict. As a proud Progressive Zionist, I believe in the right of Jewish people to self- determination, the Palestinians have the same right. We all, I hope, will the same right. We all, I hope, will Chair the government's policy of a two state solution. We need to be a strong advocate for this, in the strong advocate for this, in the region.

Because too many people there, both sides of the conflict,
12:14
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
now talk only A1 state solution. Given the facts on the ground and Given the facts on the ground and the legacy of Hamas's on seven October, together with everything October, together with everything that has followed, I fear it is simply wishful thinking to say immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, which this Bill advances, with actually advance the advances, with actually advance the peace process. It might feel that peace process. It might feel that the right thing to do, or indeed a wise dramatic signal to send.

It might win praise here in the UK, but would it advance peace in the region? My Lords, experience of unilateral action suggests not. As we have heard from Baroness Northover, Nashua, Ireland, Spain and Norway, recognise Palestine as a state. Israel recalled its ambassadors to those countries in response. I fear if we follow these examples, our understanding locus, both through international standing and history, will be severely impaired, and my Lords, if this wasn't true, before President Trump plasma collection, it certainly is now, I fear.

My Lords, recognition is a card you can only play once. Timing is everything. As the Oslo Accords states, any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. Only through such engagement and mutual agreement,, will deliver lasting peace? As Baroness Northover alluded, it requires fundamental change in both sides, first it seems odious, as others have said, the point of Hamas simply can never be a part of peace. But my Lords, there are oppressive forces in mainstream Israeli politics you are thinking productively as to how best to move forward towards peace from this fragile ceasefire.

The leader of the Democrats, maybe's sister political party, formed, out of a retired major general in the IDF and an hero for seven of October, it is clear right in his view of the policy, of the Israeli-Palestinian's policy for threatening Hamas to weaken EPA. The writing is on 26 February, they said the simple truth is Hamas has survived thanks to Netanyahu, and Netanyahu survived thanks to Hamas. He argues the regional struggle isn't about territories, so much, as one of moderate forces, that want stability and press parity, first as extremist forces, they want anarchy and terror.

Israel should leave that moderate alliance, the UK should urge that moderation on Israel. We would have the agency, would we have the agency to do so? If we unilaterally declared Palestinian Mission statehood. He outlined a process towards peace, and it prevents me from going into detail and prevents me from talking about the credible alternative, called the Egyptian solution. These are not these awful plans we have heard from President Trump, these shocking type trees for Gaza, but they are not accounts of despair either, 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 clear in this debate that there are indeed a member of Yeganeh said, you have a strong desire to put forward for peace. Spearheaded by the party. Because of that, not despite it, my left-wing living friend, said recognition would be a huge failure of British foreign policy making the UK totally irrelevant. My Lord, we should listen to the partners for peace when they ask us not to do I congratulate the noble Baroness for her introduction and I am delighted to support her.

In doing so, I declare my interest for Estonians and president of the Palestine Council. As we have heard, the history of the United Kingdom in the Palestinian territories is deeply intertwined. And through that shared history we have a special responsibility to the Palestinian
12:18
Baroness Morris of Bolton Portrait Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-
-
responsibility to the Palestinian people and we should discharge that responsibility which is long overdue by recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state alongside the sovereign state alongside the sovereign state of Israel. Because we cannot champion the rights of we cannot champion the rights of others around the world and support them in their stand for freedom on self-determination and then deny self-determination and then deny those same rights to the Palestinian those same rights to the Palestinian people. Recognition should be the first, not the last step in the process.

And 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 to 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. And the Palestinians are not asking for anything extraordinary. Those I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting and working with over many years and it is worth reminding your Lordships house that the majority of Palestinians are ordinary people, just like you went me.

From the young girls in the refugee camp in Gaza debating present 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 unhampered by the problems. To the farmers to mentor animals and harvesting their olives and dates against a background of violence. Courageous medics who are not just treating today's physical and mental injuries but are still treating the wounds, scars and applications computations of injuries occurred over many years, students, academics, decisions, those who play sports who just want to travel without asking permission from Israel which is often denied, none of them are asking for anything extra.

They are still only 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 today repeats the words I have used a neurologic house over many years. It is dispiriting and beyond project given the horrors of the past 18 months in Israel and Gaza that they still need to be saved. And I hope the noble Baroness the Minister whom I hold in the highest regard will support this bill, but if that is not the case, please can she explain the timetable for the government's manifesto commitments to recognise Palestine.

Because the only silver lining for me in losing the general election was the thought of the Palestinian people being given not just the right for recognition but the hope they so desperately need to ensure a they so desperately need to ensure a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

peaceful future for all. I to welcome this bill. Britain's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I to welcome this bill. Britain's historical role in the plight of the Palestinians is undeniable. In 1970 declaration guided Palestine, declaration guided Palestine, cutting from within it the passion for the Jewish people. With the for the Jewish people. With the caveat as it had been clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
12:21
Baroness Sheehan Portrait Baroness Sheehan (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
non-Jewish communities in Palestine. That did not work out too well. More than a century has passed since the declaration, during which more and more land has been taken forcibly from the Palestinian people and atrocious violations of civil and human rights have been upon them. Unquantifiable in scale so large are the numbers, 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 crime under the Geneva Convention.

Witness to the situation in Gaza today when all humanitarian aid remains blocked by Israel and electricity has been cut off. Arbitrary detention of men, women and children has been commonplace, illegal under national law. False displacement of people, illegal under international law. Some noble Lords who contributed today's debate may not agree with me that Israel is guilty of heinous human right abuses. Well, Israel can put those allegations to bed immediately by allowing independent journalists and observers into Gaza and sees violations of press freedoms in the West Bank.

It is a fact that independent human right investigators, fact-finding missions, or the International Criminal Court still do not have access to Gaza. This is long overdue. Britain has a special response to right its actions of the last century and undo the damage of the declaration and it cannot be right that after 146 countries that recognise Palestine, Britain is not of that number. There is no justification for withholding the Palestinian people director recognition as a viable state and the hope that goes with it.

I support this bill and its commitment to international law to the two state solution of Israel and to Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security within recognise pre-1967 orders and I hope the Government and others will do the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to strongly support the noble Baroness lady Nerth owners bill and that very brief time available to me I wish to concentrate on one of the major obstacles to a two state solution. obstacles to a two state solution. The Israeli settlement enterprise and the illegally quantified West
12:24
Lord Soames of Fletching Portrait Lord Soames of Fletching (Conservative)
-
-
and the illegally quantified 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 courts was signed, when we dreamt of a two state solution, the number of settlers was 250,000. Their numbers have troubled. The intention of the Israeli Finance Minister is to increase those numbers to over one million. All of these settlers have the full rights of Israeli citizenship. They live under Israeli civil law, unlike the Palestinian neighbours who live under Israeli military law, to pupils in the same territory but under a discriminatory legal system.

I hope that the Noble Lady, the noble minister Baroness Lady Chapman will outline the governance position on any further Israeli annexation of the West Bank. And will she also confirmed that the Government expects Israel to adhere to United Nations Security Council for 76 and 478 of which they are of speech which not just condemns the annexation by assisting there with such Israeli measures that were employed and must be rescinded. In all, there are now nearly 300 illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Every one illegal. Everyone a nod towards peace. During what was nod towards peace. During what was meant to be a ceasefire, Israel has mentored 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. Forcibly displacing 40,000 Palestinians. This is not the only example of false displacement outside of Gaza, where 90% of the population has been forcibly displaced over the last 18 months.

It's really settler violence rated and abetted by the Israeli army has targeted Palestinian communities in areas C and now increasingly area B of the West Bank. This is. Displacement where violence has been deployed to force these communities into cities so that settlers can steal even more land and 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 demolitions of Palestinian homes and structures are just another tool to force Palestinians out of areas, since 19 January 2025 the UN figures estimate that 211 structures were destroyed during this 37 day period.

The legal position under occupation is now clear. As there was highest court, the International Court of Justice made clear. It stimulated that the Israeli occupation was illegal, in violation of the Palestinian right to self- determination and that Israel must bring the occupation to an end. Recognising a Palestinian state from the 1967 lies on the territory that Israel illegally occupies would demonstrate that the Government is committed an equal hand in the law committed to a two state solution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determination. I rise to strongly support the
12:28
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay Portrait Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Labour)
-
-
honourable lady Barran as Northover's bill on the recognition of the Palestinian state. I would also like to draw the House as attention to my register of interest for the British understanding, for years Palestinians have been gas 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 said that we are still having this debate, this recognition should have happened years ago.

Back in 2014 I spoke in the debate on 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 rocket Sean. We do not have to recognise the state of Palestine with borders. There are plenty of examples with states with territorial disputes and rightly so, not the least Israel, a state that has not declared its orders but 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 will not have to recognise Jerusalem as Palestine's capital. All of this should be decided in association towards peace. But recognising the state of Palestine as we recognise 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 on the British Government has, for decades, ever since 1980, supported a two state solution.

The Government need to move beyond the slogan of a two state solution, which I know there believing to a situation that actively brings this about. But otherwise they risk not being seen as credible on this issue. Some point out that Palestinian authorities week and many think it is corrupt, but recognition is not endorsement of any Government, nor should it be. It is a recognition of a right of equal. For example, we recognise them but do not approve of the regime.

The nature of the Palestinian Authority is immaterial to this issue. Some argue that Israel would be freezing of contracts with Britain as it did with Sweden and Ireland. But I would suggest that we to be bullied by another state, we should stand of the bullies in a matter of Currently I believe crimes against you manatee are being committed in Gaza, where Israel has imposed a complete blockade on a captive civilian population of some 2.3 million Palestinians. This 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 the 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 the 22 Arab states, plus the support of the organisation of the Islamic conference of nations.

That is 56 states in total. It is, in my view, 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 will commit? -- Welcome it? The Arab plan is for a two state solution, a solution that the UK subscribes to. The Israeli plan is for A1 state solution where there is no Palestinian right of self- determination. No Palestinian state and no peace. The British Government needs to recognise the state of Palestine, support the Arab plan in Cairo, and should take a leadership role in moving the situation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. My Lords, may I respectfully advise on the speaking time for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate is three minutes. My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for introducing this bill, and I wholeheartedly supported. It is right to recognise Palestine as a
12:33
Baroness Warsi Portrait Baroness Warsi (Non-affiliated)
-
-
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 piece of the process that Sally has failed to materialise. -- Tragically, as we have failed to recognise Palestine, the idea 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.

My Lords, at a time when Netanyahu and Glatt find themselves wanted under arrest warrants issued by the ICC, as Israel finds itself before the ICJ, accused of plausible genocide. At the time the lifeline has been slashed, when in Gaza, over the last 18 months, nearly 18,000 children have been killed, 70% of all homes destroyed, hospitals, schools, universities, libraries, churches, and mosques erased, at a time when in the occupied Palestinian territories, secular violence is unashamedly unchecked, where Israeli military personnel have live streamed their own human rights abuses, where senior members of this Israeli regime makes no secret of this absolute dismissal of a Palestinian state, where the denial of Palestine, Palestinians and even basic humanity of these people from those lands is now mainstream, the urgency to recognise has never been so acute.

146 countries recognise Palestine, over 75% of the world. Most recently, Ireland, Norway, and Spain. They recognise, as should we, that recognition is a basic backstop position that we urgently all need position that we urgently all need to adopt. Because 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 the Moral Courage to do so. And we have that opportunity today to stop being a outliner -- Outlier on this issue and choosing to be on the right side of history.

My Lords, I and others in this House have rightly condemned those that have argued against the right for Israel to exist as a state. Today a very least, we should be equally for syphilis against those who either through their words or through their actions failed to condemn or failed to curtail those that do not believe in the right for Palestine to exist as a state. In conclusion, I urge this House to come together to support this bill. They recognise Palestine, to say that we recognise the dignity of its people, the suffering of children, the sacrifice of its multiple generations.

We recognise the humanity, their right to live on their land, to be free in a safe, secure and sustainable Palestine. To prove our policy of two-state is not just words, the fundamental belief, by recognising that second state, the state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, in line with UK policy, UK interests, UK public policy, UK interests, UK public opinion, and UK values.
12:37
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I also arise in support of my noble friend, Lady Northover, and her bill for a recognition of a Palestinian state. As of 28th of 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 formally recognise Palestine as a 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, interim peace negotiations on an equal footing, and demonstrates 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 the citizens. We see the illegality of this operation and call for Israel to end it. Those who seek to bring peace and security in 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 seventh October, at least 1,000 -- 1860 incidents in the West Bank were recorded. There is impunity in for the perpetrators, since 2005, only 3% of investigations entirely logically motivated crime against Palestinians in the West Bank led to a full or partial conviction. The repeated sustained destruction of Gaza has deprived generations of Palestinians of family members, homes, healthcare, food and shelter.

With vital aid still being denied and being blocked. We all deplore the trustees of Hamas on seventh October, and call for all the hostages to be released immediately. But the disproportionate retribution has resulted in more than 60,000 people in Gaza being killed, and large numbers of civilians, women, and children, included, has sickened the world, by immediately recognising the state of Palestine, the UK 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. democratic leadership in Palestine. , for builders dedicated in assurance and mutual security. As other members have said, we must seize the moment and take a stand to work for peace, justice, security,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for both states, through the two state solution. My Lords, can I offer a legal perspective? In international law, a state exists only if four criteria are met. All of them. And this is are met. All of them. And this is set out in the convention of 1933.
12:40
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
set out in the convention of 1933. And it seems to me highly doubtful that Palestine satisfies any of these criteria. At the moment. First of all, 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 pre-1967 borders. This is wishful thinking. It is a fantasy. It is not a recognition of an existing territory.

A defined territory depends on a peace settlement with Israel. Second, the state must have a permanent population. But, around 2.5 million of the 5 million+ any who live in the West Bank and Gaza, are refugees. I cannot understand how Palestine can claim to have a permanent population, when half of the people living there are waiting to live in another state in Israel. Third, a state needs a government, which exercises effective control of the territory. But the Palestinian Authority operates in the West Bank and Hamas claims to give a Gaza.

-- Governor Gaza. The government of the state must cover the whole of the state. And fourth, the state must have independence. The passing of authority currently enjoys very limited powers, because of Israeli control. Control for good security reasons, as Lord Frost pointed out. 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 is only going to happen when Palestinian leaders except the political reality leaders except the political reality .

She pointed out today is . She pointed out today is the Jewish festival of pure, we celebrate our victory over the chief minister to the king of Persia, who wish to annihilate the Jewish community, over 2,000 years ago. Fortunately, the King of Persia had a Jewish wife. I can confirm, they are often a middleware presence. And the king sided with her, and how man was hanged. As with most Jewish festivals, the basic principle is very simple. They tried to kill us, they failed, let's eat.

Now, all of this is sadly material to today's debate. Because progress towards the achievement of the state of Palestine is being held up by modern Hamas, lots of them in the Palestinian community, whose primary objectives remain to kill Jews and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to destroy the state of Israel. My Lords, share the desire of the noble Lady, Baroness Northover, and noble Lady, Baroness Northover, and so many other noble Lords who have spoken today, a pace and have always hoped for a two state solution. The only party which has never accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, alongside Israel, as the alongside Israel, as the Palestinians themselves. Israel was Palestinians themselves. Israel was attacked by its neighbours right from the word go, and has been attacked and attacked again and attacked and 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, says, timing is everything. And at this moment in time, 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 Javadi's, Islamists, and extremist leadership 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 this slogan on our streets every week are effectively calling for no two state solution they calling for Israel to be eradicated. And also, in practice, the pre-1967 borders, originally accepted by Israel of course, proved an unsustainable geographical dividing line. Losing Israel completely vulnerable to invasion and annihilation. Has the noble Lady, the minister, been to the Golan Heights for example? To see the complete overlooking of Israeli towns, leaving them wide open to If the intention is to satisfy Palestinian demands for statehood, which I wish truly were possible,
12:46
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
can Noble Lady the Minister or other colleagues around the House point to any evidence of their willingness to any evidence of their willingness to live in peace next to a Jewish state? If there is none for her today, if she would write to me, I today, if she would write to me, I today, if she would write to me, I would be grateful. How must ones to wipe Israel from the map. Nothing less would suffice. At the Palestinian Authority and her mass reward their citizens for murdering 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 that Israel has no right to exist. A Palestinian state will turn out the same as the post-2006 and occupied Gaza. Israel withdrew unilaterally. Dismantle the Jewish settlements established there and what happened? The Palestinian leadership spent billions on building tunnels from which to attack and kill Israelis. which to attack and kill Israelis. Suicide bombers killed Israelis, they spent years preparing for October 7 to rape, torture and kill Israelis.

They particularly targeted them like myself who most wanted to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours, who spent their lives helping Palestinians, ferrying them to hospitals for treatment and to hospitals for treatment and employing them in their homes and friends and neighbours, the very people that wanted to state solutions have now started to lose faith in that. The Right Reverend mentions the absence of a peace process. Peace is not a solo. If one side does not see peace we would just be repeating past failures.

This bill would be a licence for further terrorism, I am afraid. A signal that deliberately killing, torturing, and murdering Jews and promising to do it again and again then hiding safely in tunnels, knowingly cynically inviting retaliation from those you have attacked will bring rewards from civilised countries whose emotions you have deliberately remediated. Another double once to see peace, and so dry, but Ivy other bill will take us further away from that goal. take us further away from that goal.
12:48
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
The idea of a Palestinian state for many years after the discussions of a Jewish state, the problems, the lift to the declaration being made by British minister who favoured a national home for the Jewish people, sought to protect the rights of the indigenous, as has happened, but no such was made to create a Palestinian state, it was after the middle of 6 million Jews and the defeat of Nazism that in five was made in 1938 to effectively a two state solution.

The Israelis accepted that the Arabs rejected it immediately, commenced a war on the fledgling state. Since then, the 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 we were offered in deal where 95% of the land claimed would be given, including East Jerusalem's, and international jurisdiction of the old city was offered. Again, rejected by her mass. Finally, the Abraham accords inched closer to many of them recognising Israel, and as we know that was the fear of this, there are lies recognising Israel which we will see prompted her mass to carry out the events of October 7.

In my work on coexistence Chair of the foundation in the UK have been in dialogue with those in East Jerusalem is and the specifically said they do not want to live in a state that would carry out such atrocities on innocent people as has happened, or, indeed, by those who have rejected -- rejected viable piece of this in the past. It is frankly hugely insensitive and somewhat naive to bring this bill to our Parliament at this time and Israel has only recently received back some of those costs who were tortured mentally and physically, hung upside down, put in cages, starved, told lies about their family, and ignored by the ultimately useless Red Cross.

And this bill once to effectively reward the perpetrators. Every culture of her mass would be in power if there were elections. And, indeed, to those who rejoiced in clay as they heard of babies being decapitated and killed in front of their parents, others burned alive, or raped, as Lord Pannick has indicated the criteria for statehood under international law are clear and for good reason. Statehood is not simply a prize. It is a set of responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority.

On many of those requirements, most significantly, in my opinion, the critical requirements of an effective Government, both in the West Bank where it authority is limited and in a and more so on the Gaza Strip which is in practice by gun carrying terrorist organisations have mass. This bill will not help democracy to a Government that is in its 19th year of a four-year term. It will not strengthen law-enforcement in a system that continues with a tennis policy of pay to slay.

Financially rewarding terrorists for their atrocities. And it will not help replace a school system riddled with the indoctrination to violence over promote excellence rather than martyrdom. Finally, there are more problems in this bill. Section 2 subsection 2, the Vienna Convention under the diplomatic regulations is given effect in UK law under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1960,. And sets out relations between diplomatic missions and the 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 bar and heads of admission are credited to the Court of St James. I would ask the Baroness Northover and the Noble Lady the Minister do they seriously advocate that the king received at the Court of Saint James, as has been envisaged, a person from her mass, who is every person in this world would recognise as a terrorist? This is not the time to consider such a state and friendly that I frankly find this deeply upsetting the abilities could be even raised in our house.
12:53
12:53
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
as recently as July of last yeah our Secretary of State 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. And I going to ask that question which And the people of Palestine have waited long and painfully. We have heard of assurances that we want to see in action, the parliamentarians have voted for this and will vote for it I am sure again.

I wanted to urge this House for a number of reasons. There can be peace in the Middle East with a two state solution and whatever we said just now with people suffering on both sides the pain of what has taken place over the last couple of years. You cannot have a two state solution without a Palestinian state and recognising Palestine is not something that 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 that have been involved in mediation is not how important that is it gives the peace process aerial chance. It is a catalyst for peace talks rather than obstacle to them and provides a clear framework for negotiations, acknowledging that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights and aspirations. Now, recognising Palestine since 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 in the works -- to annex the West Bank and it would really send a message about this idea of expelling Palestinians from Gaza with the Palestinians from Gaza with the creation of a grand holiday resort on the bones of the many who lie still dead under that rebel, to live your trouble out on the sand still being soaked in the blood of women and children and is it any wonder that they use the word illegal, immoral, and impractical in describing the horror that sent through so many people in the world? And to see Netanyahu smiling at that suggestion by President Trump was shocking.

And what we're talking about here is forced displacement which is in prime international law. I just want to counter the legal opinion that has been given of what defines statehood. No court would acknowledge what the Lord has said when all of those criteria have been prevented indeed by Israel. That is the point. Why are there refugees? Why are there people? Let me just give you a quote and I sorry about the time but I want this before the House.

In March thousand and 19 Netanyahu told anyone that wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support both her mass and transferring funds, money, to hummus. That is part of our strategy, to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank. It was to counter the very criteria that we were talking about. I visited Jerusalem, I have been to Israel many times and I have many friends there and I visited Jerusalem. I am sorry but I going to end this.

I visited Jerusalem in March back in 1999 and I met Leah Rabin and she took my hands and I was paying tribute to her husband and the sadness I felt about his death and his assassination and she said tenure who killed my husband. And I said my honourable friend and I thought what does she mean? She said the night before my husband was killed Monday tenure who 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 a piece in this part of the world. And to say that we would be compensating her mass, compensating breaches of international law by not recognising the state of Palestine. Thank you very much.
12:58
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
While I do share the concerns that some have expressed about the statements that have been coming from Washington recently, I can support this bill for at least three reasons. First, the recognition of states is an exclusive Crown privilege, Parliament can't legislate on any matter and the prerogative but it is constitutionally a very bad idea for Parliament 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, 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 that it ever was for Parliament to dictate the content and timing of a sensitive step in foreign affairs on the Government. Second, by forcing the Government to recognise the state of Palestine within the 360 boundaries, the bill would this incentivise the Palestinians to compromise and without compromise there cannot be peace.

I echo in this respect Lord Pannick's comments on territory as a requirement for statehood. It would be ironic for Britain now to proclaim that the pre-67 orders were always the official orders of Poston, given that Britain was one of the few countries that recognised back in 1950 that the Canadian annexation of the West Bank except for Jerusalem. The third reason is that recognising Palestine in the current circumstances would reward her mass. It is true we would be recognising the state, not any Government.

The policy would officially recognise elements. By Lord Carrington in 1980. But in this case the distinction would be somewhat artificial. The fact is that recognition of the new state is a gift to whoever is in power at that point. There are two Palestinian cities that exercise governmental control in the Palestinian territories, the Palestinian Authority and her mass. All evidence suggests that her mass is by far the most popular of the two, and would almost certainly end up being in complete control of the Palestinian state.

Some believe that support for her mass 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 so much support and attention in the West as the Palestinian cause, and yet I can seen were evidence of such support and attention being rewarded for greater moderation. Palestinian support for her mass at this point is a social and political fact. It is a regrettable and truly tragic fact, but it is one that we cannot wish away.

Things may change in the future, but we are not the ones that can make that change happen. We must dispense with the illusion that we can change other people's societies. Even if every country in the world recognised Palestine as state unconditionally tomorrow, the consequence would not be that her mass would give way to a moderate Palestinian faction. What would happen is that her mass would gain an internationally recognised state and in those circumstances recognition what conflict. It would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Northover for getting her bill to this stage. And
13:01
Lord Shinkwin Portrait Lord Shinkwin (Conservative)
-
-
getting her bill to this stage. And I thank the noble Baroness for signalling opposition to the deprivation basis on which the state of Israel was founded. My Lords, we have learned recently that the Americans have been talking directly to Hamas. So, I was just wondering whether they noble Baroness, Lady Northover, had managed to make contact with Hamas and get their take on the two state solution? Has take on the two state solution? Has she spoken to, who only a few weeks ago described 7 October massacre as, " A source of pride for our people, to be passed down from generation to generation." Has she spoken to them, who said barely a fortnight after the massacre, " We will repeat the October 7 attack time and time October 7 attack time and time again, until Israel is annihilated.

We must remove that country, because it constitutes security, military and political catastrophe. It must be finished." My Lords, I think it is clear where Hamas stands. On a two state solution. As you have already heard, they reject it, indeed, their barbaric actions on 7 October and their statements since provides incontrovertible proof that not only have they effectively not only have they effectively vetoed it, they have set back the cause and the realistic possibility of Palestinian nationhood for generations, if not forever.

So, I finish with a simple question, as to how anyone could not want peace for the people of Gaza, and the West Bank, in Israel. My Lords, Hamas have answered that question on 7 October 23. They do not want peace and they most certainly do not want a two state solution. However much we would like to, we cannot ignore the fact that it is Hamas which have indeed done more than anyone to destroy the two-state premise, on destroy the two-state premise, on destroy the two-state premise, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, when moving a similar bill in the other place two years bill in the other place two years ago, my friend, who I greatly admire as an MP and respect as a self- as an MP and respect as a self- described daughter of Palestine but also friend of Israel, ask the government to recognise the state of Palestine without any preconditions. Palestine without any preconditions. As vice president of the current defence of Israel, speaking in a personal capacity, I/O complete the understand her frustration and understand her frustration and understand her frustration and motivation, which I think is shared by my noble friend, Baroness Northover, today fell to thoroughly support the creation of the state of
13:05
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Palestine, and I agree with my noble friend that Israel needs it has wealth of the problem -- Needed as wealth of the problem -- Needed as well. The problem is that it sees the gesture not being a practical solution but a dead-end for all, even increasing the frustration of Palestinians, rather than increasing Palestinians, rather than increasing hope. It would not obviate the painful compromises that would have to be made in bilateral to be made in bilateral negotiations, by competent governments with international governments with international Obstacles often cited to the creation of two states of the existence of hundreds of thousands Israelis living in settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the demand that, as well as the many Arab Palestinian-Israeli's who are Israeli citizens, there should be the return of many more Palestinians to what is now the state of Israel.

In that context, I was pleased to be invited to attend a few days ago a presentation by leaders of an organisation of Israelis and Palestinians called land for, I thank Richard Branson and his not- for-profit foundation Virgin Unite, for sponsoring the event. Overall, they of course have envisioned two states, Israel and Palestine, with a border, but they have proposed what they call a joint framework, allowing more people to live together, and apart.

They point out that when Palestinians refer to Palestine, is the entire area, and we are familiar with this recently, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. Just as for Israelis, Israel refers to the same space as that no international borders can change these connections to the homeland and identity. They proposed the political solution must reflect the emotional reality and create a framework that allows members of both nations to travel and live of both countries have the right to travel, work, and over time and with limitations, reside.

Not get citizenship in both states. That is a very tall order. Freedom of movement is incontrovertible enough in Europe, but at least they are making positive and dynamic proposals, not just a static one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which might go nowhere. My Lords, we have to start with a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we have to start with a practical situation on the ground Hamas still in place, still on, still holding hostages. Won't even still holding hostages. Won't even accept Israel's right to exist, let alone committed to living in peace alone committed to living in peace alongside it. The key points seem to alongside it. The key points seem to me to be practical. There is no idea how any borders would be police, there is no guarantees for Israel's security. The failure,, to establish a policy in the state is not the fundamental cause of the problem, it is actually the result of the fundamental problem, which is that Israel's enemies have always been more determined to prevent the existence of a Jewish state and to allow the establishment of a Palestinian one.

In 1947, it is extraordinary actually a noble Baroness just glossed over this when she was introducing her bill, what happened in 1947, the UN proposed two states side-by-side. The Jewish people agreed, Israel was
13:09
Lord Austin of Dudley Portrait Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
established. Seven Arab countries established. Seven Arab countries invaded on day one to prevent Israel from being established. They were not successful in that, but they did prevent the Palestinian state being established, and for a long period of time, that was exactly the position of the PA, that would Reddit now it is the position of Reddit now it is the position of Hamas, and Lebanon, where large number of people we have heard in number of people we have heard in number of people we have heard in the West Bank as well.

I have always said prosperity for the policy and Israelis alike. The majority of Israelis have supported a two state solution. Pisceans have offered estate on at least five occasions, most recently, in 2008. When there was agreement, when they were offered, and at least 95% of what they wanted, there was an agreement about how to deal with the question about how to deal with the question When Israel pulled out of Gaza into thousand and five, it had a functioning economy, the PA had control of the borders, imports and exports, there was an agreement on a seaport, plans for an airport, it was a Palestinian state and was destroyed by Hamas who cancelled the elections, executed their 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. And that is why, as Lord Shinkwin said, the biggest barrier to a Palestinian state is Hamas. At the first step must be, anyone who supports peace... I was therefore now to go where we discuss plans to get Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, to cut funding to Gaza's economy and provide jobs for young Palestinians, so they don't end up joining Hamas. Lord Katz was completely correct about this and would be most more use if we were discussing that, instead of this proposal.

And I just want to conclude by making one final point, which is that proposals like this are actually a barrier to peace, because it will only be achieved if the Palestinians commit to peace, and by helping Israelis and Palestinians go for, negotiate, and -- Build forums, negotiate and compromise. If we suggest Palestinians, the stated can be imposed by an international community, that means they are less likely to engage in building trust, in negotiation, and compromise. And the U.K.'s role must be to help build long-term stability and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, make no bones about it, I vote now to recognise the
13:11
Lord Gold Portrait Lord Gold (Conservative)
-
-
I vote now to recognise the Palestinian state, is delivering 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 October 7, 2023. Many good thinking people call for a two state solution. But regrettably have not thought this through. They believe innocently that the Palestinians want this, but there is no indication that this is the case.

Indeed, the opposite is true. Hamas remains in control, as we have seen from the disgraceful scenes of triumphalism, when in recent weeks, few of the hot stitches -- Hostages, few of the hot stitches -- Hostages, to view, were allowed to leave Gaza, and were first humiliated by their captors. So, it is clear that Hamas is certainly not giving up. This bill calls for further recognition of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. As a Palestinian Mission for the UK to be given full diplomatic status.

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 to the UK mission, on its website, the mission claims to provide official representation for the government of the state of Palestine, on behalf of the Palestinian people. How can that be possible whilst Hamas is on the scene, claiming it represents Palestine? Do those sponsoring this Palestine? Do those sponsoring this bill intend that the British Government should recognise this terrorist group is the Palestinian representative in the UK? Hamas, my Lords, once just one state, Palestine.

Its charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. Until the Palestinians are represented, by those genuinely wanting peace, prepare to recognise the state of Israel, no progress can be made. What's more, Hamas is not alone in having that ambition. Those who chant from the river to the sea also make clear their rejection of a two state solution. So, whilst Hamas remains in control and there are no other Palestinian representatives, 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 only be considered when all the remaining hostages and the bodies of those murdered by Hamas are returned to Israel, and in a dignified way. Hamas must be permanently removed from Gaza and the West Bank, the control must end. Gaza and the West Bank must be demilitarised. There must be no more rockets, drones, or the weapons in the region, or tunnels. The leading Arab states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, must guarantee this.

And new leadership of the Palestinians must recognise the state of Israel. There must be established in international peacekeeping force to guarantee Israel's future security. Only when all of this is in place and seemed to work, should we ever consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognising a Palestinian state. My Lords, that is rather a long

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that is rather a long timeline. I think, as Lord Gold suggested, the date which we might recognise a Palestinian state. As other speakers have observed, 146 other speakers have observed, 146 out of the 193 UN members now recognise Palestine. The number has recognise Palestine. The number has been growing relentlessly, I say, been growing relentlessly, I say, until recently, the area of the world where there were relatively few supporters was Europe. 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, looking increasingly internationally
13:16
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
isolated. The choice for our isolated. The choice for our government seems to be clear. Do we remain in a diminishing group of states holding out hope gets recognition? Eventually and recognition? Eventually and reluctantly, we take the plunge. Or do we take the lead, recognise do we take the lead, recognise Palestinian rights, and encourage Palestinian rights, and encourage As recognising Palestine as an essential prerequisite for the two- essential prerequisite for the two- party system 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 a new realism. On the 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 brave for the region. And the Israelis and the Palestinians were to conclude if there were that a two state solution is neither possible nor viable.

Then please can someone because no one yet has in this debate, can someone tell me what on earth is the solution to this dreadful blood soaked interminable 80-year-old conflict? 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 salvage was interspersed with fear, menacing periods of relative peace punctuated by stiff sporadic violence? Rejecting the two state solution means in practice the defect or 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 I think the bill before us is so important, because of course a two state solution requires the recognition of states and 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 the settlements, now is very much close to being the last possible time.

Surely, the UK should be joining the 146 UN members who recognise Palestine, such a move gives dignity and status to what Labour describes in its manifesto as the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is the right to do, both morally and politically. And it is in the interest of all the states in the region, including Israel because I urge the Government not to say that we believe in a Palestinian state but not just yet. The time has come to do it and to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it quickly. I understand the sensitivities in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the sensitivities in this debate, but may I ask remaining speakers to stick within the advisory speaking time of three
13:19
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

advisory speaking time of three Who is next? You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You. Me? Then I shall try to be less than three minutes and there have indeed been so many missed indeed been so many missed opportunities to have a secure, just, durables two-state solution. That has been made clear during today's debate. President Clinton today's debate. President Clinton for example has said that there would be an internationally supported Palestinian state in supported Palestinian state in existence for over two decades if they had not rejected that they had not rejected that possibility in July 2,000 at camp David in the final settlement.

But for those of us that support the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis we have to face up to the current realities that sadly make the legally prescribed timetables set out in this bill implausible. Firstly, that is because instead of what has been raised in the build the urgent need right now is of course the release of all remaining hostages from humanitarian aid, the militarisation of her mass and is stuck to the reconstruction of Gaza. Those are, in fact, the immediate priorities for both Palestinians and the Israelis.

Secondly, painful as it is to admit, the Palestinian state conjured into existence right now in the rubble of Gaza, the trauma of war, the continuing chokehold of her mass, such a new state would, in all likelihood, immediately become a failed state. The institutions of legitimate Government do not exist. The Palestinian Authority or the committee of technocrats as proposed by the Arab League would like a monopoly in the northern Forton since October 7 we have seen precisely what her masses exterminate program of Government if allowed to continue would look like.

And that points to 1/3 fundamental truth which is that notwithstanding all of 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 Iran continues to intensify its nuclear- weapons program. In other words, a two state solution needs a 22 state solution and rather than symbolic gestures, that is all our country's practical diplomacy should now be directed towards.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. May I first of all congratulate the noble Baroness Lady Northover
13:22
Baroness Mobarik Portrait Baroness Mobarik (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Baroness Lady Northover for introducing this members bill which I strongly support. Some have said that a two state solution is no longer an option, but have yet to propose an alternative. Believe that the only viable option is a two state solution. I 5.32 5.32 million listing ends are recognition and as a population with the inalienable right under the UN Charter. Making up the West Bank Gaza and Jerusalem. The criteria has been referred to but just to say that the Palestinians have a defined territory, as mentioned.

It is universally accepted that this territory does not to be fixed to a particular size and further when the UK recognised Israel in 1950, it did so without defining the borders or its capitals. Palestine is recognised by 75% of the countries around the world. The global majority. The UK has solutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people. It is the occupation which has happened for Palestinians to achieve self-determination and territorial intent. The Palestinians are a highly educated people, with a distinct culture.

They need our support to achieve a brighter future and not have their human right denied. The rates which we all take for granted. Simply symbolic gestures will not result in change. Recognition will give the people of Palestine dignity and the credibility to negotiate. And to make a two state solution area later means listening to those on the ground. The ordinary peaceloving people of both Israel and Palestine of whom there are many, despite the divisive rhetoric and misery of this last year in the House.

Palestinian and Israeli organisations working together to shift the dynamics on the ground, combating violence and ramp it use of the listing in towns and villages, educating campaign within and amongst their communities, organisations such as rabbis, looking the occupation in the iPad, confidence for peace, House of Hope, violence International, to name if you of the many. I welcome that the premise to endorse the international fund for 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 and in an ever worsening situation that UK must show real leadership and bring a degree of urgency to the matter. We must enhance the international rules-based order, so that all enfranchised by it in the global South, rather than only benefiting those to be discarded whenever they wish and, most importantly, we must do everything to protect our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compass. Yesterday your lordship's house was debating the U.K.'s global was debating the U.K.'s global position. Lord Howell of Guildford who called that debate spoke about the need to work within the non- aligned nations, the majority of the aligned nations, the majority of the world states and people who wish neither to cling to the coattails of neither to cling to the coattails of the chaotic court of President Trump and answer to his whims or to fall into that straggling gas of the autocracies of President Putin and
13:26
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
autocracies of President Putin and Z. But these are states that wish to uphold in the rule of law, the norms have won by campaigners and activists over the past decades. The question yesterday was essentially what can the UK do as it middle ranked power and where should we position ourselves? And today we have a chance thanks to the Noble Lady Baroness Northover to offer a direct important practical course of action. The recognition of the state of Palestine, one that is many noble Lords have noted the alliance with the Labour Party manifesto for the recent election as well as with the majority of those in the non-aligned states, 146 in total, who already recognise the state of Palestine.

As the Noble Lord pointed out we do not have to wait for this bill to go through all of our Parliamentary procedures. I joined the noble Lords and call for the Government to act 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 already extensively covered. I grew with nobility Baroness fasted that the need for the Palestinian people to have state recognition has never been so acute step under the nobility Baroness Morris that the recognition of the Palestinian state should be the first step, not the last.

Particularly where we are now with looming dexterous threats of the court in Washington that have suggested the very reverse of self- determination stop seemingly casually suggesting the Palestinian people should be cleared out of Gaza. As many noble Lords have indicated now, recognition does not show support for any group or organisation within Palestine. It is a recognition of the need for the Palestinian people from the Palestinian state. Who made that before? I go to the human right from January this year, titled five babies in one incubator, showing pregnant women's rights amid Israel's assault on Gaza.

It tells the story of RM, the 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 the difficult labour was forced to leave hospital after four hours and beg for a lift home. She and her family within four to and her family within four to evacuate their home and at last report living in a tent, the newborn baby suffering from diarrhoea. Now, state recognition, of course, will not meet the medical needs of RM and her baby.

It is the nobility Baroness Morris said it would offer a gesture of hope. It would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something we could and should do. My Noble Friend has done in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Noble Friend has done in this House and Government raising the
13:29
Lord Alderdice Portrait Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
possibility in the bill of addressing a profound injustice with which we as a country have colluded for decades. The implementation of the UN resolution 181 in 1947, almost 80 years ago, has been obstructed. The state of Israel came into being, but now they are the state of Palestine or the special status of Jerusalem is has emerged. As the wish for the Palestinian state on away? Well, the Jewish wish for that state survived for around 2,000 years, so why do they imagine the Palestinian wish for a state will disappear? In fact, as the Noble Lord 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 like the United States and the United Kingdom who stand is actually damaging their international reputation.

As I listened to those who oppose recognition by criticising the other side, quoting a very real and horrible fact of terrorist outrages, quoting legal objections, giving special regard to one side of the conflict, break lemming the other, giving a veto to the Government which has no intention of producing a peaceful outcome. As I listen to this, I have heard before, I heard it in Northern Ireland, precisely the same voices and sentiment by unionists who have governed Northern Ireland for 50 years, in fact it is often the same people in the same parties who are saying the same things, as they said about Northern Ireland and indeed about South Africa in some cases.

Eventually, British Governments stopped accepting a veto on progress. Indicated that they wanted to see a Without the change of attitude, there would have been no peace process. No end to the terrorism, no Good Friday Agreement. Those who reject the spell, and I say to the noble Lady, the minister, this and the other opportunities that are offered will find that history will judge them harshly. I have seen it, my Lords, Arab speaking with a friend in South Africa who said the (unknown term) will never allow a.

I grew up in a part of the United Kingdom where it seemed clear the Orange order and those who support it would never allow a pluralist government and a change of approach. My Lords, it came. If there is one message of the last few weeks, it is that when the dam bursts, it doesn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

burst gradually. My Lords, I refer the House to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interest, and to answer registered interest, and to answer the noble Lord, Israel has peace with Egypt, it has peace with Jordan, organisations with the UAE, Jordan, organisations with the UAE, Morocco, my Lords, Israel doesn't appear to be the problem. At those
13:32
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
appear to be the problem. At those noble Lords who talk about the declaration, why is it that they always forget the second part. ... (Reads), then it is. What about the second part that says the rights and political statement enjoyed by Jews in any other countries? And we know what happened to the Jews in the Arab lands of that period. It is easily, gestures do not make peace, and outside of negotiations is not a solution, does not improve governance, security or economic stability, instead it sends a dangerous message that violence and extremists can be rewarded and remind noble Lords that Hamas refuses to recognise.

Crucially, this moment cannot be separated from the horror of October 7, 2023. My Lords, there can be no reward for barbarism, no reward for terrorism. The irony that this debate falls on pure should not be lost, it is a wonderful festival of joy and happiness, recall Esther who stood up to hatred, when Iman sought to eradicate the Jewish people. With a vote of the Kings Palace, who He spoke to speak up, and 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 costs.

Ultimately chose to act with integrity, and in doing so, helped bring about the downfall of Haman, and today we must take the lesson and stand firm against hatred. Silence, my Lords, in the face of the threats posed by Hamas face of the threats posed by Hamas and the regime and those that whisk Wish... The atrocities committed Wish... The atrocities committed against Israel, this is the time to speak up, they must be brave enough to speak the truth, call it a what it is, and if she will be do not reward those who seek violence through peace.

To conclude, 7 October, Hamas terrorists wage the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust. 240 civilians take hostage, 59 of them still there today. These terrorists openly and proudly share the same anti-Semitic philosophy as the Nazis, and from the story. They do not merely seek to attack Israelis, they want to eradicate Jews. All Jews. And to support the establishment of a Palestinian state this time, would Palestinian state this time, would be to reward their actions. It would betray the victims of 7 October, it would condone hostagetaking, it would promote anti-Semitism, and it would declare that Jews lives do not matter.

It would threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Israel, and Jews around the world, and it would hand the posthumous victory to Hitler, and Hamas. Now more than ever, we must be clear right and principled in our approach, this is not the time for symbolic gestures that only serve to inflame tensions. It's the time to stand firmly for peace, for truth, and for the security of all people in the region. I urge this House to stand firmly against premature recognition and in favour of a truly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiated peace. My Lords, I am most grateful to have been given the privilege to be able to say just a few words during the gap, I will try not to abuse about indulgence. I would like to give my congratulations to Baroness Northover for instigating this debate, to support her innovating debate, to support her innovating she has said. -- In everything she
13:37
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
she has said. -- In everything she has said. I believe the recognition of Palestine should be imminent. We should have done it already. It should not be the prize at the end of the process. It hasn't worked, that approach, nor will it. But what I don't understand also is where on the one hand we say Palestinian statehood is conditional, whilst at the same time, we are turning a blind eye to the illegal expansion of Israel, building up the possibility of a two state solution.

My Lords, the risk of repeating everything we have heard this afternoon, over 146 members of the United Nations have already recognised Palestine. I would like recognised Palestine. I would like to pay tribute to the leadership that is being 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 to what is being said about the Balfour declaration, it was a British initiative, and we have an enduring responsibility to ensure that all parts of that declaration repelled.

-- Are upheld. We listen closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, about the conditions needed under international law to create a state. And I have to say, he is a brilliant lawyer, but I think his approach was somewhat selective. For instance, some of the things that he spoke about and not achievable because of what is going on in the West Bank and Gaza itself. He also failed to mention anything about the right of return, those descendants of Palestinians, who have had to leave what is now Israel and the almost 5 million of them, as well, around the world.

But I have one question for the noble Lady, the Minister. And it is this. Under the dictionary interpretation of ethnic cleansing, it states it is the systematic. Removal -- Systematic forced removal of religious and ethnic groups from an area. It also goes on to say it includes indirect methods of forced migration by coercing the victim beautifully and, critically, my words, preventing its return. So, I'm very mindful of the use of language in dealing with this, having been a former chairman of the passivity of Middle East Council, which my noble friend is the president.

But in the government's opinion, what the forcible removal of the operation of Gaza constitute a crime against humanity? My Lords, I want Israel, we need a strong Israel now, more than almost any time, but it has to win international support and it is losing that support. And if they are involved in the forcible eviction of the population of Gaza, we have not seen at the likes of what will seen at the likes of what will ensure. And nor do we wish to.
13:40
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, there are times where we are reminded that we all have a privilege to have a voice in public life. And I am grateful for now -- For my noble friend to give us the opportunity to have what is a very thoughtful and respective debate on a vital issue. A vital issue of British foreign policy but also of the very nature of peace. I will say to those who have got close to suggesting that there are some motives behind my noble friend's proposition, that will be linked with of some form of embolden terrorism.

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 as part of the motive. Some of argue in the debate that recognition will embolden extremists. The failure to have recognition, some have argued, has already emboldened extremists that we see within the political system within Israel. The answer, I 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.

And therefore, my noble friend for bringing her built this House I think will be commended for allowing us to debate the need to make rapid progress on a Palestinian state, the fact the United Kingdom can play a very significant part through recognition. I will say there has been reference to groups such as the noble Lord, Lord Katz referred to, I am a great admirer of that work. We have a Palestinian project. They have been very many UK-based organisations who are part of this very serious debate on this issue, and that is to our overall credit in this country for but I will also say, which has been interesting to me, no one in this debate, not a single person has denied that Palestine is an occupied territory, legal and international law.

That is helpful. -- Illegal under international law. That seems to be consensus 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 another. And especially in the context of my noble friend, Lord Alderdice, when one of those state is illegally occupying the territory of another. That created distortion of incentive, in any form, of looking at a sustainable peace for the long-term.

The issue for some, of course, and I suspect may be the ministers, is about timing. Timing is a policy in itself, therefore we should recognise this. I want to quote from Hansard. And I hope the House will allow me. Referring to Middle East peace, " The Palestinian problem lies at the very heart of the issue, the objective here must be full of genuine autonomy for the areas, for these areas, as a step towards determining their final towards determining their final status.

Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, but to build trust in the area, and when the consent of the Palestinians, then for Israel to cease the expansion of the settlements in the occupied territories." This was Lord Carrington, as his first speech as Foreign Secretary. As the Thatcher government was formed in 1979. And as was highlighted, that was the year of the Security Council resolution 446, Joe prohibited illegal settlements. More than 50,000 then, Nancy said, 45 years later, 750,000. And he outlined the intent of certain Israeli government ministers, in a gesture, and intent for that to be expanded further.

Therefore, timing is a critical importance, as is policy. Therefore, we will only deny failures of the past, and we will repeat them, if we do not act. So when does the, some do not act. So when does the, some Preventing the second now, when the situation on the ground start? Was it 1979? Or was it in 2025? Because for some in the debate, it suggested that because of the conditions on the ground now, the presence of Hamas, the continued displacement, threats, reward for terrorism.

But this is surely the argument to suggest the current ceasefire is a mistake. But I haven't heard them say that in this debate. I wonder why not. Do they feel it is a grave error and a legitimisation of Hamas for the US government to sit down bilaterally with Hamas last week? Without it feeling part of any structured involvement of the Palestinian Authority or brokered talks through Qatar. Some of argue that the: Some have argued in the debate that the absence of finalised agreements in the border area and resource access and infrastructure challenges, displaced people, proposed land swaps, fail to be, haven't been agreed.

Lack of normalisation and the start of the political process with its nearest neighbour, means that time is not neighbour, means that time is not right. The gesture, as some have suggested. But if this criteria, set by them in the debate, was in place on 18 February 2008, then we wouldn't have recognised Kosovo. And recognising Kosovo, the then Labour government, said the UK was recognising it because when others did not, it is because we have made the judgement that it would be impossible to seek the return to Some argue, presumably, that position should have been denied for South Sedan on July 9, 2011.

The situation on the ground as a political situation on the ground when it comes to whether or not we want to see two parties negotiate on an equivalent basis for having incentive for the futures as a nobility Baroness indicated. In many cases, the situation is stronger for Palestinian recognition. I was not surprised that this debate had two eminent lawyers speaking in it. I was equally not surprised that they took the Qatar review. But the political view must see that Palestine does have a defined territory, recognised in customer UK foreign policy.

In trade and partnership agreements between his majesties 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 to represent UK interests within these territorial areas for the population of Palestine. An to other states that we know is And for Kosovo in 2008 and South Sedan in 2011, the Noble Lord who I respect and I think spoke very clearly and very sincerely suggested that this should be at the end of the process but now.

I have visited Israel on the basis of the basis brought and I took advice from others from him and the question for me is who now rebuilds from the rubble, who now negotiate a future for both states? When trauma is intense. Where there are still extreme players, were the ones with the highest stakes who have the mutual need for security, it cannot be President Trump negotiating directly with her mass. It has to be on the basis of their being recognised states from the United Kingdom perspective.

Before I close I do want to go back to 1979 and then following 1980. And because what was the context then I think is the context now because the position on the ground is of importance when it comes to ownership and respect. We need to find a way of reducing extremist narratives as there can only ever be one political solution. The year after Lord Carrington made his speech still a liberal delegation to the Middle East, in September and October 1980. The delegation led by David steel met President Assad, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, met residents.

And I want to close by quoting from the conclusion of that visit to 1980 when it came to recognition of Palestinian rights because of the delegation is convinced that no lasting international is either possible or just an does not recognise the rights of the Palestinian people and at the core of that recognition is the creation of a national Palestinian identity, free to determine its future relations with its neighbours and the Lebanese Foreign Minister, the homeland is the beginning of the solution.

Time is now, not another

**** Possible New Speaker ****

45 years. Like others let me pay tribute to
13:50
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like others let me pay tribute to the noble Baroness lady Northover for bringing this bill forward. In for bringing this bill forward. In the previous debate Lord Norton said the private members bills was to provoke debate. We have had many passionate, strongly argued positions on both sides and across parties, which I think has been fascinating. Unfortunately, she will not be surprised to hear on these benches this is not a bill that we can support. Whilst, of course, we recognise the leading concerns, the strong convictions on this matter, we must ensure that any action taken aligns with our principles and our long foreign standing firm commitments.

The Conservative party has consistently supported a two state solution. Guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. We agreed that it is imperative to offer the people of the West Bank, people of Gaza, the political perspectives of a credible route to statehood and a future of sand prosperity. However, we maintain that the recognition of the Palestinian state must come at a time when it is most conducive to that piece process. This moment, in our view, has not yet arrived.

The recognition also cannot be the start of the process. As many others have said, the horrific atrocities committed on October 7 remain fresh in the memory. Hostages are still being held by her mass and, until recently, hummus 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 families. This is not merely a matter of diplomacy but a matter of fundamental human right. Furthermore, any pasta piece requires that mass is no longer governing 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 a necessary step towards a lasting resolution. And if the Palestinian Authority is to take on an expanded role it seems to me that it becomes even more imperative that authority implements the most significant program 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 go good governance must be at the heart of NEPA administration and all the democratic process must also be demonstrable.

As you have said before, there are also steps that we would like to see Israel take, including in relation to frozen funds and the West Bank settlements. We want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand around the courts that we hope can be restarted. And finally I think it is worth pointing out that it is very unusual for a state to be recognised through an active Parliament. As is usually the case that the Royal prerogative is used to recognise states.

Like others, I look forward very much to hearing the response of the Government and the Minister.
13:54
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to Baroness Northover for pointing this bill and like all noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate. It was good to meet with Baroness Northover to discuss her bill in advance of this debate. I thank her for her time. Private members bills do provide, as the Noble Lord Caroline said, an important and helpful opportunity to debate these important issues. Before I address the bill directly, I would just like to take the opportunity to speak to some of the issues around the ceasefire and the issues in Gaza and the West Bank.

As they are today. The current agreement to end the fighting in Gaza is a moment of opportunity after over one year of agony. We must thank Qatar, Egypt, and the US, for their tireless mediation efforts and take comfort in the British citizen Emily to marry and UK links EI should Robbie have been freed after their horrific ordeal at the heart -- not hands of her mass and that the body has been returned to his body. The ceasefire remains fragile.

We need all parties to sustain the ceasefire and deliver the agreement in full with the releasable hostages and moving through the phases and into a lasting peace. The ceasefire agreement is just the first step in ensuring the 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 the 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 continues. The Foreign Secretary made this clear to Israel Foreign Minister during the call on 5 March. Israel must work closely with the UN, including commercial industries and more goods into Gaza to help support health and shelter needs and the resumption of basic services.

We have been clear that cousins must be now allowed to return to their homes and rebuild and we do not support any forced removal of people from or within Gaza or the West Bank or any reduction in the territory of the territories. The Foreign Secretary along with the foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and Italy, has welcomed the Arab initiative of a recovery and reconstruction plan Gaza. It shows a realistic path to the construction of Gaza reconstruction of Gaza, and improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for Palestinians living in Gaza.

These plans must be based on solid political security framework that is acceptable to and provides a 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 is financial year has included a £2 million uplift you a contribution to the World Bank to deliver water and energy infrastructure across the OA teas. This will support early recovery efforts.

We are funding to roles and the Palestinian Authority's recovery reconstruction 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 that recent Israeli military activity, Israel must show constraint and ensure the skill of its operations is proportionate of 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 threatened the viability of the two state solution. In October last year will be sanctioned three outposts, four entities, that have supported sponsored violence against communities in the West Bank. We look at all options to take further 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 come down on those who seek to inflame tensions.

Turning now to the issue of recognition, as many noble Lords pointed out, the 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. And this needs to be irreversible. That is why this Government, unequivocally supports the two state solution. It guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and 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 and thank him for his constructive approach. I am not, as you would expect, in position to endorse his idea but I do think him for making that suggestion. But my Noble Friends, we do not support this bill today. Not because we do not support the goal, as many have said, this Government strongly supports recognition in 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 Lord Katz explained. 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. The UK has provided £129 million this financial year to help alleviate the suffering, including £41 million which is supporting the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region.

The UK support has meant that over half a million people have received essential healthcare, 647,000 people receive 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 in Gaza that is needed now. It is in the long-term interest for both Israelis and Palestinians that the ceasefire holds and progresses to each of its phases and that both sides take this opportunity to begin the process to begin building a pathway to peace and stability.

pathway to peace and stability. Peace will only be sustainable if both sides recommit to a renewed peace process, resulting in a two state solution with a safe and viable Palestinian state. This Government is committed to doing all we can to support this and to recognising the Palestinian state which we will do, not in the end of the process as some have suggested but at the point at which recognition by the United Kingdom would have the greatest effect of bringing about the peace and stability that every speaker wishes so dearly to see.

I think everyone for their contributions given what we have just heard from the Noble Lady the Minister. Strangely enough I particularly appreciate the support what I want to single out how amazing it was to hear from the how amazing it was to hear from the Noble Lord. Kindertransport trial whose wise and generous and constructive solutions to Parliament over so many years brings him back
14:03
14:04
14:04
14:04
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

the holes. This bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
14:04
None Portrait Legislation: Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill - committee stage
-

"Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. House to be in committee on the
14:04
14:04
14:05
14:06
None Portrait Amendment:1 Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-

to introduce a similar power, on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and did some excellent Strathclyde and did some excellent work. We support the improved scrutiny of secondary legislation, we have tabled a number of constructive amendments to probe the noble Lord's intentions and understand how this bill will work in practice. Turning to my amendment number one and number two, the Bill number one and number two, the Bill as drafted would require a Minister of the Crown to table a motion in of the Crown to table a motion in the other place, when your Lordships' House passes a motion stop to withhold withhold all of a statutory instrument on the grounds that the Minister should consider amending it.

Our limit of a statutory instrument to a maximum of 40 days. We 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, the other place. Hindering the house's ability to effectively manage its own business. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Thomas is concerned that regret motions in your Lordships' House have no legal effect and thought, by some, to be of waste of time. In this amendment we are testing whether it be appropriate for your Lordships' House to have the ability to trigger large numbers of debatable motions, in another place.

We are seeking 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 emotions are being moved in the other place, our amendment would be that government does not wish to he the recommendation to think again, would not have to table a separate motion to reject those concerns. Admittedly, this release of the discretion not to amend the statutory instrument with the Minister alone, rather than in the other place. The other place has its own powers to approve or reject secondary legislation, as it sees fit.

If the Bill, in its present form becomes law, we should seek to ensure your Lordships' House uses his powers, very sparingly. It will be an unacceptable state of affairs of your Lordships' House can withhold a large number of statutory instruments, forcing the Government instruments, forcing the Government Of Of oceans Of oceans and Of oceans and the Of oceans and the other Of oceans and the other place. Of oceans and the other place. I Of oceans and the other place. I now speak to Amendment three, standing in my name.

In its current form, this part of the bill seeks to employ your Lordships' House can choose not to consider a relayed 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 relayed, are considered formally again, before being approved. We are particularly concerned that, should a circumstance arise we your Lordships' House could choose not to consider a formally about consider formerly an amended and relayed statutory instruments, the decision to use the new think again power would have an impact on Parliamentary time, in another place, but not in your Lordship's House.

This clarification would retain a light check on the House using this power frequently, or even as a standard response to statutory instruments where a minor
14:08
14:08
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 5, after withheld in a search for 40 days. Thomas of Gresford would know that as I explained, when I spoke at the second reading of his bill, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am very concerned indeed the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with. We have on many occasions put forward suggestions, as to how this can be settled, in a satisfactory manner.

At the moment we have statutory instruments that are badly drafted. There is no mechanism whereby they can be amended. And on one occasion I persuaded the noble Lord of the Minister. Do we draw the moment and lay it out again. There should be some mechanism whereby statutory instruments can be amended. There were a number of other criticisms. Perhaps the most important is that Explanatory Memorandum should actually explain. And many is the occasion, where the memorandum seems to be trying to explain the inexplicable.

By repeating the wording of the statutory instrument, in the Explanatory Memorandum, as if that was an explanation. And then we have statutory instruments without proper impact assessments. So, I warmly welcome the way in which the noble Lord is approaching the subject. And may I just say to my noble friend, Baroness Finn, that I think her route, by putting forward amendments, that would make this bill more acceptable. I.e. Putting us on the second basis as in the House of Commons, so that both houses have powers to improve the quality of the secondary legislation.

That can only be a step in the right direction. Because I anticipate that the noble Baroness, the Minister may find ways in which it is no longer possible to support this bill. I would greatly regret that. Therefore it is very much up to all of us, so to amend the bill, that it becomes more acceptable. Whichever government is in power. So I warmly support my noble friend.
14:11
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
In light of what noble Lord Hunt has said. I do not wish to say anything about the urgent need for reform. I also think that clarifying, by amendment the use use of the word may in the second is better. You do not want to leave any dispute about it. May often means it must, at least to lawyer. I do have concerns about the effect of the other two amendments. It does seem to me that when one looks at the speed at which statutory instruments proceed.

Giving the House power to delay, only for 40 days, will mean a Minister make shrug his shoulders and say so what. Secondly, it does seem to me that if the procedure, in clause 2, in a subclause two is followed, then the Minister must be and must rightly be used, in line 16. That seems to me completely right. It also seems to be, in clause 2. The master there is right, because in order to ensure that the Minister does something, it shouldn't be at his discretion.

I'm afraid, in having discussions, when the result of the last election was more speculative, there was quite a feeling one picked up in the House that some people would be happy to see the procedure changed, so that there was a proper scrutiny. Of course, the statutory instrument procedure, as it currently stands is the most wonderful tool for government, because it enables them to avoid lengthy and sometimes in my view, wholly unnecessarily lengthy debates of the House. And unless we can make the statutory instrument procedure work more effectively, in the manner suggested by Lord Thomas of Gresford's bill, it seems to me that we are steadily eroding the power of this House, properly and to examine important legislation.

One only has to look at something like the product and metrology bill. I completely understand why the Government wanted that as a framework bill. Because of the procedures of the House make it impossible to do by primary legislation. If we cannot change our procedure from primary legislation, then we have got to change the procedure secondary legislation. Therefore support one of the amendments made, but not the other two in this group. two in this group.
14:14
Lord Thomas of Gresford Portrait Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Lords for their support. They have already said everything that I can say about this particular provision. It is a simple amendment that is being put forward. And should the Minister be forward. And should the Minister be speaking at this stage. Can I say that the amendments are misconceived. If the second amendment, to put a form must in subclause two is passed, it means that the Minister has a discretion not to bring the matter before the House of Commons, at all.

And that is the end of it. After 40 days, nothing happens. The provision goes through, and amended, with all the faults that it has. The ironic thing is the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I'm very grateful to have had some conversations with, can only defend her position on the basis of that it might possibly, at some future stage come up the works in the House of come up the works in the House of Commons.

I think that is an unlikely thing, having regard to the number of regret motions here at the of regret motions here at the moment. And their delegated powers and committee, which I have served, on a number of occasions. What about the time that is spent, in the Moses Room. In which we discuss these matters and in this chamber, when there are regret motions. And nothing happens at the end of it. So, to have amendments one and two, would make a nonsense of any type of reform at all.

It would be back to the beginning. So far as the third amendment is concerned, must form a, in a subclause five. If it really delays in the matter before the House, the House has to consider it. May or must really doesn't matter, but what does matter in clause 5 and the purpose of subclause five and the purpose of it is to make it quite clear that there would be no ping-pong procedure following from it. That there is only one possibility, one opportunity to question the instrument, that has been laid by the Minister.

And that once that opportunity has been exhausted and the matter comes back here, amended or unamended, the procedure cannot be gone into, once more. That is the whole purpose of more. That is the whole purpose of And, as I say, I'm perfectly relaxed about whether it is may or must. Of the matter is put before the house, it's going to be heard in any event. So, these are amendments which do not do anything to clarify the bill and they do not assist in preventing the theoretical coming up of legislation in the House of Commons -- gumming up.

I do ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble
14:18
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

contributions today and the noble Lord Thomas for his continued work championing the important issue of secondary legislation. We know that this house pays an important role. I'm grateful to the role played by committees in this house, including the joint committee on statutory instrument and the secondary legislation scrutiny committee. Turning to the first group of amendments, which address scrutiny of instruments in this place, I believe that these amendments are well intended and I recognise that these represent a check on the power of this place and it's 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 Baroness Anderson set out the second reading of this bill, we must focus our efforts on issuing statutory instrument is delivered to the highest quality in the first instance. That is not to say that the situation is perfect. This government is aware that Parliament has not always been given the information it needs to really scrutinise legislation in the secondary legislation scrutiny committee has asked for additional information.

I'd like to remind the house, and I hope reassure the noble Lord, that this government has pledged and intends to do better. This does not however mean that we need to revise procedures for the consideration of statutory instruments. In a similar vein, well I thank the noble Baroness far amendment -- for her amendment, I maintain that the government's position is that the legislation before us is not the way to remedy our processes regarding statutory instruments.

I'm nevertheless grateful to her for drawing attention to the importance of maintaining a balance between the powers of the houses. Additional training, resources and guidance have been and continue to be developed and revised as part of our ongoing effort to do better. This includes training and resources for ministers and civil servants. Last month, the guide on legislation was updated. This will support updated. This will support departments to decide on whether to include delegated powers in a bill.

Finally, before a close, I turn to the final group, which concerns technical correction of statutory instruments. It would be remiss of me not to draw the house's attention to the work done by the archives. This is a well established process through which the government can already make minor common and substantive corrections after publication. The National Archives to an excellent job. Where applicable, the issue this look to the right office in the comments. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the Commons. I think the noble Baroness might be talking to the next group of amendments. So sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. So sorry. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord Lord Thomas first response to my Lord Thomas first response to my amendment and I'm grateful to Lord amendment and I'm grateful to Lord Hunt of Wirral for his contribution. Having been a member of the Having been a member of the secondary legislation scrutiny committee, I think it was the first two or three years and Brexit legislation when I first joined Your Lordships' House. I have for sympathy with explanatory memoranda and lack of impact assessments.

I fully support all that my noble friend said on that. The noble Lord Lord Thomas has made the point that he disagrees with my amendments one into about the Minister having the power to lay secondary instruments before the other place in the time limit. I understand his arguments on amendment three. If we don't want to leave any doubt regarding may or must, then it's probably simpler to leave it as must rather than may. I sympathise with Lord Thomas regarding the reasons for drafting the bill.

Presently, your Lordships have a binary choice to reject or approve. There is no procedure for the government to consider your
14:24
14:24
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-

Is a tumultuous pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Baroness Finn,
14:25
14:26
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-

the elected house. A big to move.
14:26
14:27
Lord Thomas of Gresford Portrait Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My objection to this amendment is that it simply does not make sense. You cannot in the machinery that is put out in the bill conceivably exchange the position of the house of lords to the House of Commons. I'm not proposing legislating for the House of Commons but for the house of lords in the fulfilment of its function -- the House of Lords and the fulfilment of its function as a revising chamber. If you change the words around, you're asking the House of Commons to advise itself.

It has made a mistake. I don't think It has made a mistake. I don't think that can be done. The amendment that is put forward by the noble Baroness, I regret to say, doesn't make sense in the way that it is framed. My Lords, what the machinery that is proposed in my amendment does is that the House of Lords can consider an instrument that is put before them. It can consider whether it has any concerns and if it has concerns, it doesn't form them into an amendment to the instrument in anyway.

It simply conveys those concerns to the House of Commons for the House of Commons to consider. And the house -- and the House of Commons has two possible courses of action under section 2 of my my amendment. It can reject or it can request the Minister to make amendments to the draft instrument. It's the House of Commons who make that suggestion to the Minister for an amendment. You cannot reverse that and suggests there should be some machinery in the house of commons to ask the House of Lords to make suggestions of amendments and frame amendments for the Minister to make.

It just doesn't make sense. This is a complete model, this particular amendment. I do ask the particular amendment. I do ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it. noble Baroness to withdraw it.
14:29
14:30
14:30
None Portrait Amendment:Clause2 Stand Part. Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-

that clause to stand as part of the that clause to stand as part of the
14:31
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 2 Stand Part. Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals venue legislation. A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposals venue legislation. A mundane errors might be addressed, once a statutory instrument is made once a statutory instrument is made into law. Any significant corrections require that it be corrections require that it be revoked, amended or replaced, by any instrument, thus duplicating many elements of the work load of Department of civil service, National archives staff and parliamentary officials, as well as members. So when she statutory instrument is made. No matter how instrument is made. No matter how technical to the text of the secondary legislation.

We appreciate the clause 2 is seeking to put the current post approval protection on a statutory footing. Before putting this process into law, we must ask ourselves whether it is good practice, in the first place. I accept successive governments bear responsibility for this, but Ministers should not introduce statutory instrument that need correction. They should get the drafting right before they are considered by Parliament. This is what 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 will 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 the statutory instrument is superior than granting Ministers and statutory power to make those changes, after the reform. This invites another concern as to how the House is able to undertake Of making technical amendments to make sure that power is properly exercise. Perhaps the newly created power in clause 1 might be sufficient to give your Lordships' House the opportunity to highlight areas and statutory instruments and recommend the correction, by Ministers.

As a general point and I accept successive governments of their responsibility for this, Ministers should not introduce statutory instruments that need statutory instruments that need correction. As you get the drafting right before they are made before Parliament. I beg to.
14:33
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
The question is at the clause 2 stand part of the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I suppose we are at a crossroads, here. Are we going to have legislation built to improve statutory instruments and the statutory instruments and the procedure that is adopted, as I predicted, and second reading and predicted, and second reading and heard, earlier from the noble Baroness the Minister. There isn't a general enthusiasm for this bill. general enthusiasm for this bill. Which I regret. We saw, as the noble Which I regret. We saw, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas reminded us, with Lord, Lord Thomas reminded us, with the product regulation and, we had a direct confrontation between the government on the one hand and Parliament on the other.

Our delegated powers and a legislation committee made a very clear recommendation that all statutory instruments, in the context of that bill, should follow the affirmative resolution procedure. And indeed, there noble Lord, the Minister, Lord Leon had a special session of the delegated powers and legislation committee. As a result of which, the committee said it was not minded to withdraw its recommendation, that all statutory instruments should follow the affirmative procedure. And I did move an amendment, to observe and support our Select Committee, when it was voted down.

And I sense, that even when a committee, is powerful, as the delegated powers and delegation committee, has such a strong recommendation. Even when they listen to the Minister and still maintain their position, there is no procedure whereby Parliament could hold the Executive to account, through the affirmative revolution procedure. Critical resolution procedure. I am filled with scepticism as to whether this is going to make progress. I can well understand my noble friend moving close to, no longer stand part, because in a way we are searching for a way in which 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. Certainly clause 1, the noble Lord knows, I support very strongly. I have a very nasty feeling that, despite his noble intentions, which I strongly support, we are slowly entering a cul-de-sac. Perhaps, the noble Baroness at the Minister cannot lay aside all their worries and concerns and suddenly get up and 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.
14:36
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
I entirely agree, that is why it is such a pleasure to follow Lord Hunt. It does seem to me that he is right in identifying the crossroads. We either deal with our primary legislative procedure and make it more effective and more efficient and in that I have great sympathy with any government who wants to get on with things, or finding a procedure for dealing with important instruments that have subjected them to scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

When they can be amended. We are doing far too much by 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 can't do anything out of the primary legislative procedure, you can't leave the secondary legislative procedure alone. I think of the Hereditary Peers bill is a very good example of why if you don't take an opportunity to reform one thing, you end up with something much worse.

And so, I would urge the government to look very seriously at this bill. Now, I very seriously at this bill. Now, I cannot agree with the proposal of clause 2, should not stand part of this bill. There is quite an important issue at stake. It is impossible, in our present procedure to get the legislation drafted perfectly, when it hasn't been scrutinised by someone outside it. It is an impossibility. Lawyers will always find things wrong. And although the Minister says her legislation is perfect, I am afraid I disagree, it is not.

And it would be, it is a little far-fetched, I think, to think that because we have a new government, the whole of the machinery of government that draft all this, like sort of wakes up on the morning, completely transformed. That isn't the case. Therefore there is a need to correct. But what is important here then is it making sure that we are doing this, in the right way. And although I am a great believer in Conventions, which is what governs at 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.

It does seem to me that if the watering law, the mechanism for altering the law, in accordance with the law has to be under a statutory power. You cannot leave it to convention. Therefore this particular clause in the bill, although some people may arise of their eyebrows at it. I do not see how you can leave that to convention. You must make it a lawful power, under legislation and so I regret to say I could not support the Baroneseses proposal, to amend the bill in this way.

amend the bill in this way.
14:39
None Portrait Government Spokes. Baroness Twycross (Labour)
-

My Lords, I have already covered some of my points in this final group. What I would like to say is that this government does support the current correction scheme process, one that should never be needed, it is helpful where mine and technical corrections are required, it is a well established process, it is used rarely and infrequently. Correction slips as I started to say, previously, published on legislation.gov.uk, which in Shaw's this transparency in technical this transparency in technical corrections.

It is desirable the corrections never needed, but we do need to be pragmatic, in this respect is that we should therefore acknowledge that this is the part of the system that works very well, with only 69 correction slips are being used in the previous session of Parliament, to make a non- substantive amendments to instruments, containing a minor typographical errors. Appreciating, hearing the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tom Ayers and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.

I would once again like to give reassurance that this government generally remains committed to improving statutory instruments. Noble Lords will be able to judge us on our, on our success in that, over the course of this Parliament. And I would like to thank noble Lords for the opportunity for this debate today. And for the time given to discuss what we agree is a very important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. The motivation for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The motivation for this particular proposal came from a very
14:41
14:43
14:44
14:44
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page