Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, thank you for being here today for my Private Member’s Bill on the recognition of Palestine. In the light of recent proposals by President Trump and huge global instability, I think that this Bill has become even more vital. The idea that Gaza should be cleared out and its population moved to other countries to become an American riviera is deeply shocking. My Bill would require the Government to recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on pre-1967 lines, just as almost 150 of the 193 UN countries have done. Some say that recognition is merely symbolic, not changing anything on the ground, but recognition has importance—that Palestinians have the right to self-determination, national rights and the legal benefits of that, just like Israelis.

Some say that it is too late: the Swiss cheese effect of Israeli settlements, roads, walls and checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories means that a contiguous Palestinian state is no longer viable. The actions and words of the current Israeli Government seem intent on making it even less likely. Several Israeli Ministers have been clear that they will never accept such an outcome.

Nevertheless, most countries, including the UK, remain committed to a two-state solution. Probably most speakers today, including the Minister, will support this, but if it is to be delivered it becomes urgent to take it forward, lest it becomes impossible, with ramifications both for Palestinians and for the long-term future security of Israel.

Some say that recognition now would be seen as a reward for the Hamas terrorists who carried out the atrocities of 7 October. Absolutely not: this would be the long-overdue recognition of a state for the Palestinian people, not for a particular group. As Sir Vincent Fean, former British consul-general in Jerusalem, has said:

“The voices of moderation on both sides need encouragement”.


They need the hope of a political process. As three Israeli former ambassadors—who, by bravely speaking out, face much opposition—have said,

“recognition would not benefit the Palestinians alone. At this point in time, there can be no greater contribution to peace and security for us Israelis as well”.

Britain, of course, has a special responsibility. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was made here. Balfour spoke of a national homeland for Jewish people in Palestine, but he also spoke about safeguarding the

“civil and religious rights of … non-Jewish communities”.

Israel was recognised in 1948, in the wake of appalling Nazi horrors and centuries of persecution, but no state was established alongside for the displaced Palestinians. This was never likely to be settled and stable, and so it has proved.

We know that Israeli Governments have opposed Palestinian sovereignty and sought to freeze out those countries, most recently Norway and Ireland, that have recognised Palestine. The former ambassadors state:

“Reluctance by key western states to recognise Palestine has fed Israel’s misguided belief that the bestowal of Palestinian independence is its prerogative, to be conferred when the Palestinians meet its requirements”.


But it cannot be the case that an established state should be able to veto the recognition of a neighbour in its own territories. Neither can this be subject to negotiation and conditions.

In 2019, Luxembourg called for the EU to recognise Palestine. Its Foreign Minister said:

“Recognising Palestine as a state would be neither a favour nor a carte blanche, but rather a mere recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to their own state. It would not be meant against Israel”,


but a measure intended to pave the way for a two-state solution.

In 2011, William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary—and now the noble Lord, Lord Hague—stated:

“The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/11; col. 290.]


Palestine was granted observer status at the UN General Assembly in 2012.

In 2014, the Commons voted for recognition, with the Minister’s support. In putting that Motion, Grahame Morris MP argued:

“Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right … As it stands, Israel has little motivation or encouragement … to enter into meaningful negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; col. 64.]


Alan Duncan, as Minister, concluded that recognition was

“the other half of the commitment that our predecessors in this House made as part of the British mandate in the region”.

This was not, he argued, about recognising a particular Government:

“It is states that are recognised, not Governments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; cols. 71-72.]


In 2017, this House’s International Relations Committee stated:

“The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.


It is my party’s position to recognise Palestine. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, as Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, stated repeatedly Labour’s commitment to the two-state solution. Thus, in 2024, he said that we need to

“give hope to that process and move towards recognising a Palestinian state, rather than waiting for the end of the process”.—[Official Report, 5/3/24; col. 1539.]

It is something with which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, appeared to agree in early 2024, until reduced back to the traditional government line. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, noted,

“when the Foreign Secretary made the original statement, he was very clear that we need to show irreversible progress towards a two-state solution … My right honourable friend David Lammy welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s comments, arguing that recognition should not wait for the final status agreement but should be part of efforts to achieve one”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; cols. 148-49.]

The 2024 Labour Party manifesto stated:

“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel”.


So, to my very straightforward Bill. Clause 1 requires the recognition of Palestine

“as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the State of Palestine”.

The wording is taken from UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, specifying in the UN’s own terms what it means to be a recognised state. Clause 1(2) specifies that “pre-1967 borders”

“has the same meaning as in resolution 76/10 (2021) of the UN General Assembly”

and other such resolutions. Clause 2 recognises the mission of Palestine in London as “a full diplomatic mission”. Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within two months of the passage of the Act on steps taken to implement it.

This is all very familiar and all in line with what other countries have done: to recognise Palestine according to the pre-1967 borders, with any change to that to be achieved through negotiation. For those who argue that we cannot recognise a state without settled borders, we recognise Israel, rightly, but Israel itself does not declare its own borders; indeed, it claims the territory of other states. Britain recognised Israel in 1950 without the defining of borders or its capital; it did not wait for the outcome of negotiations.

This is solely a bilateral issue between Britain and Palestine. Labour’s stance in opposition created the hope that it would recognise Palestine, but hope for the Palestinians always seems to be over the horizon.

So if we hear once again that it is not the right time, in effect denying the same rights to self-determination that Israeli citizens have, then I will find myself thinking back, among other things, to a visit I made to Saudi Arabia with other parliamentarians in the mid-2000s. It was a time when the rights of women there were severely curtailed. In a break in our meetings, I went down to the pool in our hotel. “You can’t swim now”, I was told, “It isn’t the ‘woman’s hour’”. “When is the woman’s hour?”, I asked. “There isn’t one”, came the reply.

Recognising two states should have happened long ago. My short little Bill seeks to rectify that. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I thank everyone for their contributions, including the one that we have just heard from the Minister. Strangely enough, I particularly appreciate noble Lords’ support, but here I single out how amazing it was to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a Kindertransport child whose wise, generous and constructive contributions in Parliament over so many years bring him now to support my Bill. I am humbled and honoured that he did so.

I have been in this House for many years. I can hardly count the number of Ministers who have held the line, “Recognised but not now”, but have, when out of government, often deeply regretted that action on this was not taken. So I certainly hope that this Government will move forward, as the Minister indicated. The instability in the region and globally, which is terribly affecting Israelis as well as Palestinians, demands that this is more than urgent.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.