Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I expect that the name of Field-Marshal Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau does not elicit the sort of interest that once it did in your Lordships’ House. He was, none the less, a staple of O-level history when that subject would have elicited the admiration of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. Field Marshall von Haynau was an effective but severe Habsburg military commander during the revolutionary years of 1848 and 1849. His imperial standing, however, did not prevent him being chased down Borough High Street in my diocese in 1850—where my diocesan headquarters now is, very near the cathedral—by two draymen from the nearby brewery of Barclay Perkins to remonstrate with him about his military conduct in Italy and Hungary.

I mention this once-famous incident to illustrate that there have always been strong currents of feelings about issues, including those abroad. Some of these fall into what one might call the dissenting tradition. As a Church of England Bishop, I recognise that I am an heir to a different tradition, but surely our history has taught us that consensus has been built up around what is obviously true and lived out with integrity, rather than by suppression.

There is a royal prerogative in foreign affairs, as there is around peace and war. His Majesty’s Government treat with states and, where necessary, apply sanctions, but not all and every entity is derivative of the Executive. Surely if Edmund Burke has taught governing parties anything, he has taught them that few, if any, of these things should be taken into account in ways which are harmful to the nation.

As the Government’s own impact assessment on the Bill demonstrates, we address business other than that which is directly before us. It is for bodies which have a mandate separate from His Majesty’s Government to determine how, within the law, we obtain the best outcome with the assets we have, and to do so while being accountable to the people we serve. For example, Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 already prohibits local authorities from making procurement decisions on non-commercial grounds.

I recall from when I served on the staff of St Paul’s Cathedral, and later as a parish priest in Tower Hamlets, the declarations of the nearby borough that it was a nuclear-free Hackney. I am not sure what that achieved but it was a matter for them. More significant is that some of the action in respect of apartheid South Africa would not, as we have heard, have been possible had such a Bill been in force then. There was, let us remember, sharp controversy about disinvestment in South Africa, but it was at the level of argument, not statutory prohibition.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who hopes to be present for later stages of the Bill, has raised with me a concern which I think has merit: that public funding means that a number of religious foundations in education will be caught by the prohibition on saying anything about these matters. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to confirm that this is not the intention of the Bill and, if so, what can be done to mitigate the possibility.

From these Benches, we have not called for a boycott or disinvestment, or sanctions against Israel, but we find a number of things alarming in the implications for our liberties and freedoms. One is blanket prohibitions about statements, even on matters such as Uighurs in China. One may argue that the Secretary of State may permit such things, but why should this require the permission of the Secretary of State? The other is that there can be no justification for singling out a particular country in the Bill, as many noble Lords have already said, to put it beyond exception in the regulation-making power in the operation of any resulting statute. It is also deeply worrying that territory illegally occupied by the same state is treated identically in the Bill, as if it is the sovereign territory of that state. This is not in accordance with the repeated statements from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the need for lasting peace on the basis of a just, negotiated settlement.

I endorse what the Minister said about the need to eradicate anti-Semitism, but have the Government heard the concerns of bona fide Jewish bodies? For instance, a motion passed unanimously at the recent conference of the Union of Jewish Students, which represents 9,000 Jewish students, stated that

“the UK government’s recently proposed BDS Sanctions Bill weakens the ability of British Jewish students to approach the conversation about Israel in a nuanced manner”.

The motion went on:

“UJS reaffirms its support for the democratic right to non-violently protest and opposes the government’s proposed Boycott Bill which is a curtailment of that right, as well as presenting a risk to British Jewish communities and a setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace”.


It seems clear that, rather than there being a concern that local authorities operate a separate foreign policy from that of His Majesty’s Government, we should query why the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is pursuing policy objectives for the Occupied Palestinian Territories that are at variance from those of the Government as a whole.

Houses of Parliament: Co-location

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for securing this debate and bringing to it his distinguished record as a scholar of our constitution and of Parliament. My own contribution to the debate will, I think, chime with much of what we have heard already from noble Lords.

I wish to make a few simple points. First, we are two Houses but one Parliament, a point that has already been made. Secondly, although Covid has taught us much about the flexibility afforded by current technology, as did universal postage, the telegram, and the telephone in their day, it has also taught us a good deal about the importance of physical proximity. Finally, as has been eloquently pointed out, to separate out what was never meant to be put asunder will mean that the role of this House and its usefulness will diminish, and the capability of Parliament with it.

If I may expand further, the Christian faith is profoundly relational, not transactional. It frames the understanding of God’s relationship with humanity and humanity’s relationship with itself. Both are found in the person of Jesus Christ. However, did we not find in lockdown not only the ingenuity and resilience brought by Zoom, bubbles, essential services and immediate family units, but a profound loss? There is a clue in the word “Parliament”, which bids us to parlay and speak to one another—or, indeed, as our Writ of Summons requires of us,

“a certain Parliament to be holden at Our City of Westminster ... there to treat and have conference with the Prelates, Great Men, Great Women and Peers of Our Realm”.

Further, although we jealously guard our own House, as the Commons do theirs, each Session, we meet together in this Chamber to hear the gracious Speech. Traditionally, messages and Bills travel the Corridor between the Houses. Peers physically watch debates in the other place, and MPs in this. Indeed, I recall the then Prime Minister sitting here on the steps of the Throne during our debate on Article 50.

There is in physical proximity something which one cannot replicate on Zoom or by email. When Charles II sought to gain an advantage by summoning a Parliament to Oxford, he did not send one Chamber off to Harwich, for example, to gain a further advantage, nor would it have occurred to him to do so, and nor would it have been thought consonant with our constitution for him to try.

Our move from the Palace of Westminster, together with the other place, should be organised with the end in view of the understanding and access of this place by the public, and of greater collaboration and understanding between the two Houses in our parliamentary life. That is the opportunity afforded us and we should take it. However, the Government have made it clear, not least in the Written Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that they would welcome the Lords participating actively in its policy of levelling up by moving out of London. For that reason, they will not make the Queen Elizabeth II Centre available to your Lordships, despite nearly £11 million already having been spent on the proposal. I have no doubt that the Minister will again say that our decant and location is a matter for us, but it is clear that the Government will not co-operate unless we separate from the Commons.

There are options for a decant in London. Following enemy action in 1941, the Commons temporarily located itself in Church House, Westminster, and Churchill had his office above where the bookshop is now. The UN later met there. The Church itself considered relocating the function of Church House in the late 1980s to Sheffield, and in the 2000s rationalised its estate within Church House, including selling No. 1 Millbank to your Lordships.

I have no bias against any of locations which have been suggested by Ministers, who have yet to propose Kigali as an option, but we should insist, as an irreducible minimum, that both Houses go together, wherever we end up. It shows little understanding of how a bicameral legislature works to divide it. We would see Ministers only on high days and holidays, the press not at all or rarely, and MPs only on special day trips organised by Parliament’s education department. Our scrutiny would be disregarded, our debates ignored. Our interaction with the other place would wither into desuetude. We risk not levelling up but shuffling off.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

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

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and agree with much of what he said. I congratulate Her Majesty’s Government on achieving a negotiated outcome with the European Union. In doing so, I pay tribute not only to the Prime Minister but to the negotiating team, which bore a weighty burden, the Civil Service support that provided them with necessary expertise and, last but not least, the chief negotiator the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

The wider debate requires a candid and truthful recognition of what has been a complex process, including an explicit acknowledgement that a successful negotiation requires significant compromise. Such truthful recognition makes for good civil discourse. This will be further helped by more accurate language about the good and less good aspects of the package and appropriate scrutiny of detail—sadly not possible today. I hope that the public debate is less about the intangibles of rhetoric and more about the true and honest cost of the investment, outreach and spiritual renewal needed if we are to flourish as a nation state, going forward.

My final point begins with comments from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, recently retired from this House, who, early in the pandemic, spoke of what has become a much wider perception that our lives are bound together with those of every human being on this planet. That, he said, poses “the biggest moral questions”. A more positive focus on our continuing interdependence, not least with other European nations but more widely—globally—would be welcome and herald the future partnerships that are so essential to our national well-being.

Therefore, I hope that, as we consider the Bill and continue the shared endeavour that is our proud national story, we recognise that people and institutions flourish best under relational frameworks and that individualism, freed of obligation or collective provision, will ultimately fail. We are still in the season of Christmas, and the birth of a saviour transcends all national boundaries with a message of peace and good will to all people.

EU Trade Agreement

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, our duty is to negotiate with the European Union, and that is the proper course that we are taking. I make it a practice at this Dispatch Box to not comment on the internal affairs of the European Union, but the points the noble and gallant Lord raised are pertinent.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, given the concerns in the House about any attempt to derogate from an international treaty and the implications for the peace process in Northern Ireland, will the Minister confirm that the Government are aware that any attempt unilaterally to modify the terms of the withdrawal agreement will adversely affect the confidence of EU citizens resident here, and of British citizens resident in EU countries, in the United Kingdom’s commitments under the agreement, if treaty commitments may be set aside? What can the Minister say to reassure both categories under these circumstances, other than to undertake to honour the treaty in full?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as a resident of another EU country. I do not feel that there is a wider spreading out from this. The British Government are determined to honour their obligations. We are proposing, as noble Lords will see—we will have a long opportunity to discuss this—to take a power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect in a very specific and limited way. As for the peace agreement, I say to the right reverend Prelate that the peace agreement has an east-west aspect, as well as a north-south aspect.

Referendums: Parliamentary Democracy

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on securing the debate, which, as others have observed, is timely. A man who secured a silver medal in the 440 yards relay in the Commonwealth Games in 1950 knows how to pace himself. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on his maiden speech with all its fascinating revelations. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, shortly.

Of course, I acknowledge that the United Kingdom cherishes a parliamentary democracy. That key point, and all that flows from it, has been powerfully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It is the genius of this country that over time we have made use of ancient yet enduring institutions and constantly evolving constitutional practices to serve a thoroughly modern society. The Church was present in the counsels that predated Parliament and the estates that first gathered here. It has witnessed both the supremacy of the other place and the extension of the franchise. We are being looked down upon in stone effigy by those who witnessed Magna Carta, including two archbishops.

Parliamentarians have, at certain key moments, embodied the sense of the nation and articulated what needed to be said on local and national issues—as, indeed, on matters of global importance. We have sought and seek to legislate for the better welfare of our fellow citizens and we do so with our time, expertise and wisdom. We do so in this House upon our honour. Our role is to scrutinise, challenge, debate, consider and legislate. At the end, we offer our labours as a contribution to the parliamentary process and to Her Majesty for her consent.

Referenda are historically alien to the British constitution. However, the introduction of plebiscites into the British system is now a development, albeit regrettable, that we have to live with. We have legislation specifically on national referenda in the 2000 Act, such are their permanence.

It is worth considering why this has occurred. I identify at least two reasons. One is to determine intractable issues that people will not otherwise allow a Parliament to determine. In 1975 and 2016 it was, at least in part, to manage party divisions over our relationship with the key European bloc and bring certainty to a long-running issue. It came into play in the referendums on Scottish independence in 2014 and on Scottish and Welsh devolution in 1978 and 1997. As in some other countries, we now allow for key constitutional issues to be determined in referenda. The voting system referendum of 2011 was another example.

The second reason is not unrelated to the first. It is an understanding that, since democracy is the participation of the citizen in the politics of the community, referenda offer the widest and most direct form of such participation. They carry with them the sense of final arbitration of block votes on binary questions. The problem with binary question voting in a national ballot is that it invites the voting population to do what parliamentarians undertake in the context of debate and continuing process—mastering a complex topic. For referenda to continue—there is no sign of them going away—there needs to be on each occasion a mechanism, such as a Joint Committee or commission, responsible for public preparation on the issues. While there was extensive prior coverage lasting years and high-quality debate before the 1975 referendum, neither was evident in 2016.

Binary questions do not resolve complex matters of public policy, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made clear in this House on 7 March last year, during the Report stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. A referendum acts like a surgeon’s knife in amputation at a static point in time. By contrast, parliamentary deliberation evolves after each general election, facing each matter before it in scrutiny, argument and debate. A simple question determined by a slim majority leaves virtually half our nation permanently without a voice in the matter, in a way that a Parliament never does. As is said in Proverbs, chapter 21, verse 5:

“The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to want”.


For both Houses of Parliament, the continued option of referenda poses a challenge. We need urgently to recover a sense with the public that we address the really important matters and do not shy from or endlessly postpone them. If we can find the means to communicate the importance of public policy and something of its texture in the media, the appetite for this innovation in the British constitution may wane. I sincerely hope that it does.

We are contending with matters that are the most momentous that this country has faced, certainly since 1940. There are those who, at the very time we need the sort of deliberation I have expounded, have sought to close down debate in this place in a plea that all is decided in a referendum and that the rest is for the Executive to determine. Such an approach is injurious to parliamentary democracy as evolved in this nation and I hope that we in this Chamber and in the other place will resist this misguided attempt.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

I will make a number of points which I hope will be of value to your Lordships’ House and respond appropriately to Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. It is clear to me that Ministers in this Government understand freedom, as did their predecessors, as freedom in security. We have heard in the Queen’s Speech that we may expect legislation,

“to prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism in all its forms, and promote … integration”.

This may be necessary, but I have concerns about our ready desire to legislate solutions to problems where other avenues present themselves. The recent lowering tone and content in public discourse is an example. It diminishes sympathy and challenges what constitutes legitimate and proper boundaries for political debate. I agree with the Chief Rabbi that:

“There has been nothing more disheartening ... than the suggestion that this is more about politics than about substance”.

I am bound to observe, for example, that there were lapses of judgment during the recent mayoral election in London.

We need a politics of generosity that transcends such divisiveness, a narrative that does not engender fear, and I applaud indications within major political parties that recognise this. It was fitting that the cathedral church of a diocese—my own, as it happens—proud of its unifying role in an area of great ethnic and religious diversity should play host to the swearing in of the new Mayor of London. It is not a party political point to say that I welcome Sadiq Khan’s decision to start his mayoralty with a symbolic move that was both positive and unifying.

A good deal of the difficulty in drafting the Bill to counter extremism appears to lie in defining what is extreme and extreme in relation to what. Hitherto, it has been in relation to British values, but a proper definition of these values and a narrative around them has been lacking for some years. No such definition appears in the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy of last October. It remains to be seen whether measures other than those already available in statute and common law are required. What is lacking is a positive, attractive narrative or narratives, without which aspirations to integration are futile.

I say “narratives” because I am aware that this country has been fed by more than one tradition and that some of these are noble traditions of dissent. It remains a concern that in a rush to exclude the hateful and inflammatory, we also deny these traditions full expression. For example, the answers of Ministers to questions about whether people in this country have a right not to be offended have received ambiguous answers. People should not seek to offend, as I have made clear, but I do not believe we have a blanket right not to be offended. Such a right, if conceded, may be a comfort to some but it is not a British value. Constraints should be few. Democratic institutions are best undergirded when people are free to speak their minds fearlessly.

The security apparatus which operates to keep us safe is extensive. It already has that most un-British of features: provisions whereby a defendant may not see evidence used against them. At a time of crisis for this country, when the very state was under grave threat, Parliament passed the Treason Act 1695, giving defendants the right to see indictments in cases of high treason and any evidence pleaded with them. I know that practitioners argue the exceptionalism of the times. That those officers and officials charged with our safety seek additional powers is understandable, but this is not and never has been, until recently, deemed a sufficient criterion for granting such requests. As legislators, we should remember our previous sense of restraint and judge all such requests accordingly.

I will add just a few observations arising from the five major prison establishments in my diocese, including Her Majesty’s Prison Wandsworth, which I have visited twice in recent months. It features in current proposals for reform and last week was subject to extensive and alarming news reports. These were accurate but incomplete, failing to acknowledge the success of staff where it happens, including in the chaplaincy. None the less, the service we seek there and elsewhere cannot be achieved without the resources to deliver it. Cuts of a third have left their mark.

Indeed, if I may end where I began in your Lordships’ House, with a caution from my maiden speech in January 2015, the background to current pressures on our institutions is one of cuts in the public sector. Pressure on the voluntary sector has grown considerably. If it is to be contested that the resources available are finite, it needs to be remembered that the remarkable resources of voluntary endeavour are also finite and it is morally wrong to push them to the limit. I hope these thoughts on aspects of the gracious Speech are of some value as this debate progresses.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships that the advisory speaking time today is five minutes. If your Lordships stick to this, we should be able to finish by 10 pm.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 21. I confess that my expertise does not rival that of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who justly won plaudits for the seriousness and skill with which he served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Regrettably, he cannot be in his place today, but I am at one with him in supporting the Government’s intentions on the reverse burden of proof.

One of the important functions of the parliamentary commission was to consider the change of culture of banks and the standards of conduct of those working in them, particularly its senior managers. Anger, disbelief and misery was felt by so many following the crisis that engulfed the British economy in 2007-08, much of it directed at the banking industry. That anger and disbelief were compounded when those best remunerated within the banks seemed to demonstrate little or no accountability for their actions. Rather, the burden was borne by society as a whole and it was the poorest who suffered most and, arguably, continue to do so. The ability of well-funded senior managers in the banking sector to evade responsibility was considerable. My assessment is that the commission saw sufficient evidence that there was a balance to be redressed. Small wonder that the commission sought to protect the public, including the taxpayer, with a robust regulatory regime and suitable civil and criminal penalties. This included several provisions with a reverse burden of proof.

A reverse burden of proof would mean that senior managers would have individual responsibility for proving that they had fulfilled their regulatory obligations, rather than regulators having to prove that they had not. This goes against the ancient common-law principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. The proposed reverse burden of proof seems to require senior managers in the sector to do something required in no other sphere of work, and that, from a philosophical perspective, causes concern. It is absolutely right that the individual is obligated to ensure that they take reasonable steps to prevent regulatory breaches in their financial institution but, as with other parts of society, it is right that the burden of proof should sit with the regulator to prove such breaches beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, I want to express my anxiety at the creation of a two-tier system of regulation in which deposit-taking institutions, including credit unions and building societies, are obligated to operate under the reverse burden of proof but other financial institutions are not. The need to ensure financial stability in the sector is vital, particularly among the largest institutions, but there seems to be a certain arbitrariness regarding who would be covered by the reverse burden of proof. I fear that a two-tier system would risk confusion or a loss of focus both within the banks and other financial institutions, and on the part of the regulators.

Well-funded individuals and corporations are capable of all manner of misdemeanours across our society, in all sectors of the economy. To introduce a reverse burden of proof only for senior managers in the financial services sector would set a grave precedent. What of those accused of pollution, negligence or failure to care? Where would it be extended next, further eroding the fundamental rights upon which our society is properly based? For the sake of all, not least those without the backing of considerable funds, we should continue to insist that the burden of proof must fall on regulators, prosecutors and those in authority who affirm that wrong is done. Better, as in the published Bill, to have a provision that contains a presumption to act reasonably and for regulators to prove that an individual has done otherwise. In view of these concerns, I humbly urge your Lordships’ House to reject the amendment.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests. Before coming to the reasons why I believe that the removal of the reverse burden of proof is a wise move in both practical and administrative terms, I want to say that its removal restores the principle of natural fairness—a fundamental principle of British law to which the right reverend Prelate has just referred, and, if I may be so bold, one to which even bankers are entitled. Also, as again the right reverend Prelate has said, the creation of a two-tier system would not be a very helpful situation to move towards.

The importance of the City of London to the British economy will be a given among your Lordships. If that position is to be retained, bearing in mind some of the abuses we have seen in recent years, it needs to be underpinned by a strict and proper regulatory framework. Under these proposals for senior management conduct, which are supported by the PRA, senior managers remain responsible for taking reasonable steps to oversee the areas for which they are responsible.

The revised disciplinary provisions in the Bill provide that regulators will be able to take action against senior managers on three grounds: first, a breach by the senior manager of the conduct rules; secondly, the senior manager being knowingly concerned in a breach by the firm of its regulatory obligations; thirdly, where there is a breach by the firm of its regulatory obligations in relation to the area for which the senior manager is responsible, a failure by that senior manager to take such steps as a person in his or her position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid a breach occurring or continuing.

The first of those two grounds would also be grounds for action against any other employee or director of the firm, while the third ground in effect replaces the reverse burden of proof. In all three cases the burden of proof now rests with the regulators. Importantly, the FCA’s reaction to these changes makes it clear that the regulators,

“remain committed to holding individuals to account where they fail to meet our standards”.

I therefore believe that the Government are right in claiming that senior managers will remain subject to the same tough underlying conditions. The statutory duty, together with the statement of responsibility, means that senior managers will no longer be able to plead ignorance in these matters.

I make one final point, which to many noble Lords may seem a mere footnote to the bigger issues we are discussing. One of the great attractions of London is that it is truly the most international city in the world. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of the most senior positions in the City are held by non-British citizens. If you are running a global business, in many instances you can just as easily manage that with your team from New York or some other financial centre. I am advised that, had the reverse burden of proof remained on the statute book, many senior managers may well have declined to be posted to London, and that some now here would have moved as soon as a suitable opportunity arose. I believe that we have here a rigorous regulatory framework of the type we need, which no longer carries within it what might well have proved to be a strong disincentive to senior non-British bankers to base themselves in London.

--- Later in debate ---

The view has been put forward that taking such action would not be legally sound, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to that. I remind noble Lords of the Sale of Goods Act. If a consumer asks for a product to be repaired or replaced within six months of sale, the retailer has to prove that the goods conformed to the contract in disputed cases. Why cannot the same provisions apply to the financial services industry?

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord in full flight but I should like to put on the record that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury signed up to the reverse burden of proof, having lost the argument in the PCBS that the reverse burden of proof was unjustifiable. I think that slightly puts in context the phraseology he used.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

The commission valued enormously the contribution of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, if we feel strongly about something, it can be a matter of record. I take the point about the unanimity of the commission, and will come to an area where I disagreed with it. I did not get my way, but signed up to it. So it is a case of tit for tat and one for one with the most reverend Primate.

This measure sends out the wrong signal—that Parliament is unfairly on the side of the banks rather than on the side of the public. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was very clear on enforcement action. We described it as being,

“as rare as hens’ teeth”.

The public want effective reforms. They want senior managers to be personally culpable. They want fines on individuals, not companies, because when the fines are on companies it is the shareholders—ordinary members of the public—who pay them. So the public are being denied and punished twice. The public—I include the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others—want a fair market where risk is rewarded but where failure is punished. That has not happened.

The point was made about the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I pushed the concept of duty of care in the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. It did not accept it as a recommendation, although it was in the report. If the Government were serious about this, they would adopt a duty of care, which would transform the financial services industry. My good friend John Kay, who has just written a book on that, Other People’s Money, agrees with me on this issue.

In the absence of the Government doing anything, when we come back to this on Report they will really have to think about how they can make senior executives personally responsible. Otherwise, the value of the Bill and the reforms, the expenditure and the time we have spent on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards will count for naught. It is time for a reassessment by the Government between now and Report. I hope the Minister takes that seriously.

Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 17th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on securing time for this Bill—a Bill that, in making provision for a constitutional convention, I am happy to support. I note that a growing consensus is emerging for the constitutional questions that we face to be addressed. To use the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, when he recently addressed the House of Bishops, we are faced with a constitutional building site and no blueprint of what it is we are trying to construct. A convention could at least help provide that blueprint.

It was in 2011-12, when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester served on the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, that we on these Benches first made public calls for a convention. A sizeable number of members of that committee, from across the spectrum, decided that the problem with trying to address as serious an issue as House of Lords reform was that the process was fundamentally flawed, for it sought to address issues of form rather than function. No one had adequately set out for debate the question about what the House of Lords ought to be doing. Naturally, it makes greater sense to settle the question of powers and function before getting into issues of form. That basic question is easily extrapolated into other similar constitutional questions, such as devolution.

Turning to the substance of the Bill, the proposal that 50% of the members of the convention should not be employed in political roles is much to be welcomed. It was a point that the House of Bishops made in its pastoral letter ahead of the election, when we called for the wide involvement of the whole nation and community in discussions about the constitution. To focus equally on those who are not employed in formal political roles argues for strong representation from churches and other faiths as key components of civil society. I wonder whether the Bill might be strengthened by the naming of such groups as being specifically included in a convention. The established church, which has been involved in every constitutional discussion since Magna Carta, would clearly have a locus in any discussion around the future of the constitution. I can confirm the willingness and active desire of the Church of England to be involved in such work.

While welcoming the broader thrust of the Bill, I am cautious about some of its rather ambitious proposals. To seek to make recommendations on such a broad list of issues as the Bill requires is a mammoth task. To do this within 12 calendar months might be considered to be Herculean.

However, there is perhaps a greater problem here. It is widely noted that public trust in our political system and class is at a very low ebb. Much of this is based on the perceived self-interest of political parties and a sense that short-termism that gives political advantage is often a governing factor in proposals for change and reform. If we are adequately to engage the people of this nation in a conversation about the nature of our constitution, this surely is a much bigger challenge to overcome.

In the list of things that a convention would address, this Bill rather assumes that there are things, such as the voting system, that need to be fixed. Such suppositions betray an underlying political conviction, and we ought perhaps to be wary of them. The 2011 referendum on the voting system confirmed as an important part of our democratic system that an MP represents a defined geographical area and is accountable to his or her constituents. A general election is still a collection of 650 local polls with the aggregated result determining the Government. It is not a single national poll, no matter how much our media and political system have portrayed it as such at successive general elections.

So questions about reform need to begin with function, not form, rather than assuming that the voting system needs changing. We should begin with questions about what is important in terms of representation and the nature of the key relationship between those who are represented and those who represent them. The same question about function and form can, as I have suggested, be asked about other areas of the Bill, too.

I turn finally to one thing of which there is no mention in the Bill: the lack of remit to examine the relationship between church and state, or the monarchy’s position in relation to the church. It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that I believe this to be right, and I welcome it. If there were ever an appetite to address these questions, they ought really to be looked at separately. However, I note that one of the terms of reference in the Bill is to look at what ought to be matters for future conventions. I imagine that this could be an entry point to a debate on establishment, should there be pressure so to do. I would therefore be interested in the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in that regard.

While it will be clear that I believe that there are issues with the Bill, its call for a convention to address the constitutional issues we face is nevertheless much to be welcomed.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, the flourishing of the freedom to practise religion is essential to the viability of a two-state solution. This freedom is under increasing pressure. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that faith leaders have a duty to act together—but there are other factors. On 17 February, without notice, the Israeli police entered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, blocked the entry of worshippers and pilgrims, and closed the church for four hours. This sort of action represents the all too frequent disruption that the Christian community experiences—action that often increases around Easter. Muslims suffer, too. All West Bank Muslim males aged 16 to 45 are routinely banned from praying at the al-Aqsa mosque on security grounds.

Freedom to practise religion is further exacerbated when it strikes at the work of the church in cross-community support. The Cremisan situation is a particular example here. The Israeli plan to site the separation barrier through land which supports the livelihoods of more than 50 Christian families and the two religious communities which run a school and a vineyard puts at risk a delicate infrastructure. The school, which educates people from across the Palestinian community, will be separated from its pupils. The land—a vital source of income—will be annexed and what remains will be separated from the community’s buildings. Israel asserts that the separation barrier is necessary for its security; that is a legitimate concern. Whatever the outcome, the route of the barrier will be illegal unless it divides the settlement of Har Gilo on the Green Line. This does not appear to be the current intention of the Israeli Government.

The problem with interference in the practice of religion and the frustration of Palestinian Christians’ attempts to serve the whole community is that it actively undermines the position of moderate voices in the Holy Land. We must remember the call for the recognition of Palestine, made by the Christian leaders in Jerusalem and endorsed in a joint statement on 13 October last year by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton and the Bishop of Coventry. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what particular steps are being taken in regard to the situation in the Cremisan valley and, more generally, to the supporting of communities of faith in the practice of their religion, which must be an essential element in the securing of a long-term, viable and stable peace.

Palestine: Recognition

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I was privileged earlier this month to spend a week in Gaza and the West Bank. I went as an Anglican participant in the annual visit of the Holy See’s co-ordination group of bishops in support of the church in the Holy Land. It was very challenging to see at first hand the current situation in Gaza and more widely in the West Bank.

The recent cycles of violence in the Gaza region represent the worst kind of failure in human relationships. The terrible destruction means that families continue to live in extreme temperatures in the shells of their homes. Indeed, we heard of the death of two infants that same weekend as a result of exposure. The halting of rebuilding due to a lack of funding from the international community and external restrictions, coupled with the hardship that the continued closure imposes on the ordinary people of Gaza, means that the tense peace grows ever more fragile. The international community cannot and should not stand idly by. I hope that DfID takes note of this and works towards increasing aid provision to UNRWA.

Despite this, it is also clear from the many people whom we met that, even in these terrible situations, the human spirit still has hope. It is humbling to see, yet, without change, that hope will eventually ebb away. Throughout the visit, we heard skilled people saying that, while they would remain, for their children there was little hope. Emigration is seen as the only answer.

Emigration affects in particular the rapidly diminishing ancient Christian communities of the region. They are a vital building block for a long-term, sustainable peace. Continual marginalisation makes the prevailing political situation more difficult, especially in Jerusalem. The separation barrier and the accelerating settlement activity are also matters of considerable concern. These divide communities, making peace much harder, as well as breaching international law and, therefore, breaching the responsibilities of nationhood. Difficult as it will be, energy needs to be directed into building and rebuilding bridges of trust, not walls that divide.

The two-state solution is the only credible outcome. On the occasion of the debate in the other place, Anglican and Catholic Church leaders in this country signalled their support for the recognition of Palestine. The joint statement by the Catholic Bishop of Clifton, Declan Lang, and my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, reflects also the desire of the churches in the Holy Land. Recognition is essentially a diplomatic decision that needs to be taken at a moment that either results from negotiated peace or helps to relaunch that process, which may well be preferable. However, we need to be sure that the rights and responsibilities that go with statehood can be honoured. Part of this is the essential recognition that Israel has a right to a secure and peaceful future in which its continued security and existence are guaranteed.

Crucially, when recognition comes, as I believe it must, we need to have a care for the minority communities of Israel and Palestine; they must have hope and security about their place, too. The recent experiences of Sudan and the Balkans demonstrate how easy it is for ethnic or religious minorities in new nations to be squeezed out in a bid for a common national identity. In a region where ethnic and religious pluralism has long been part of the fabric of communities, yet is under increasing pressure in both Israel and the West Bank, this is a considerable concern. Indeed, the concerns of Arab Israelis and non-Muslim Palestinians are often unheard in these discussions. I ask the Minister what Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment is of the dangers minorities face as a result of the emergence of two states, and what work is being done to bolster and support the fragile ancient Christian communities that are, in my view, so vital for peace.