House of Lords Reform
Viscount Hailsham Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. To our mutual embarrassment, I think we agree more often than we care to admit in public.
In the available five minutes, I shall focus on my conclusions; my reasons will follow in future debates. First, I have always supported an elected second Chamber. The Executive, through their ability to dominate the House of Commons, is far too powerful. To balance that, we need a second Chamber with much greater powers than this House possesses. In the contemporary world, that means an elected House. However, I recognise that at the moment there is no appetite for such radical change.
Secondly, I agree that the size of this House is too large. I would seek to reduce it to around 600 by the end of this Parliament, although I do not think that it is a first-order issue.
Thirdly, as regards the appointed Peers, it is undesirable that they should be appointed for life. I suggest a term of, say, 10 or 15 years.
Fourthly, on the Bishops—I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield—I think that 26 is too many. I noted what the noble Baroness said but five is quite sufficient: the two archbishops and the bishops of Durham, Winchester and London. However, I would not insist on an immediate episcopal cull and would hope to have retirement at the conventional retirement age.
Fifthly, it is reasonable to impose a retirement age on sitting Peers. The age of 80 or so sounds reasonable to me although, if the Labour Party’s manifesto proposal is implemented, the actual age of retirement in many cases will be somewhat greater. Both my wife—the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg—and I fall into that category.
Sixthly, there should be an effective filter on the appointment of Peers. Independent scrutiny of suitability and intended participation is highly desirable although, in respect of sitting Peers, I would be very cautious about too rigorous a test as to participation, otherwise, in order to satisfy scrutineers, there could be an excess of interventions by the hitherto largely silent.
Lastly, on the hereditary Peers, in my view their proposed exclusion is highly regrettable. For Labour, the proposal is largely totemic, like the ban on fox hunting or VAT on private school fees. Many hereditaries have contributed hugely to the business of Parliament. Moreover, I question whether their presence in this House raises any more issues of principle than those raised by the presence of the rest of us—for we, the appointed Peers, are after all sent here in a wholly unaccountable manner, whereas the Conservative hereditary Peers seeking a place in this House have generally to appear at hustings, answering questions from an often critical electorate, which is not a filter that the rest of us have to face.
I agree that the by-elections should be abolished with immediate effect. Having failed in two such by-elections, I sit as a life Peer. But as to the hereditary Peers themselves, if they are to be removed, I suggest that it should be at the end of this Parliament. By that time the Government will have had ample time to come forward with a range of considered and comprehensive proposals.
The early removal of the hereditary Peers will be a serious loss to both country and Parliament. It will do a very grave injustice to individuals, many of whom have served with great distinction—and we may then find that no further reforms are brought forward.
Gaza and Lebanon
Viscount Hailsham Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the radio. I am always willing to take his advice; I have done so on many occasions in the House. It is pity that he did not take mine. The reality of the situation in the West Bank is that violence is increasing. I would certainly go on record condemning the totally unacceptable language of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. It is appalling. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, knows, I would not speculate on future sanctions, but let me tell noble Lords that yesterday, under the global human rights regime, the United Kingdom sanctioned three outposts and four entities linked to the violence in the West Bank. So we are acting and will be prepared to act. We are certainly not going to tolerate the sort of violence that I have personally witnessed in the West Bank.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, when I was working in the Foreign Office some 30 years ago, I met Mr Netanyahu on a number of occasions. I formed a very clear view of him: the creation of a permanent homeland for the Palestinians was not on his agenda. Does the Minister share my concern that there are now many people making policy in Israel who, by their acts and omissions—both on the West Bank and in Gaza—are creating facts on the ground that will make it impossible for the Palestinians to live in either of those two territories? Thereby, an enlarged and largely Palestinian-free Israel will have been created.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am not going to speculate on the motives—I am certainly not going to speculate on what is going on in the mind of Premier Netanyahu—but what I do know is that our allies and the United Kingdom have a long-standing commitment to ensure that the integrity of the State of Israel is upheld, and that this should go alongside an independent Palestinian state, with two states living side by side. The road map to that two-state solution is not an easy one but I am absolutely determined that this Government, the United States and our allies in the European Union are all committed to it. I hope that we can influence those in Israel who might not have the same sort of view.