| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Laming: My Lords, I do not want to enter into party-political knockabout, but does the Minister agree that there is an important issue here about the public's confidence in the political system, irrespective of party? We are facing a situation in this country where the majority of people do not vote, which is a terrible thing to happen when you think of the struggle that there was to get the franchise. Would the Minister accept that this issue, apart from separate party politics, must be taken seriously?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about the critical importance of confidence, which we must inspire. Noble Lords who have participated in the Electoral Administration Bill, which we will consider again this afternoon, will know that I tried to establish the theme at the beginning that together we were seeking to ensure that we had a thriving, healthy democracy in which people can and do participate.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, an important report published this week by the Rowntree charitable trust about local governance in Burnley and Harrogate reveals that, in Burnley, all the political parties
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1350
together have no more than 100 local active workers, which suggests that local democracy and politics is somewhat moribund. If we get state funding for political parties' campaigning work, is it not important that steps are taken to make sure that a substantial proportion of that funding is directed to a local level to help to invigorate democracy where it really matters?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that debates on state funding need to take into account exactly the points that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has raised.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, does the Minister really think that the people of Burnley or anywhere else will recover their enthusiasm for democracy by being told that they, as taxpayers, have to begin to contribute to political parties, over and above what they do already?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, puts the other side of the argument. Debate in the House and elsewhere is focused on whether it is right that taxpayers' money should be used for that purpose. There is an argument that says yes, because it is about democracy and making sure that political parties operate effectively and well. On the other hand, there is an argument that, if we use the money for that purpose, we are not using it for education, health and so on. That is the pivotal point, but the debate is important.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am grateful for the tribute about my luck—I am going to Cheltenham tomorrow, so I hope that my luck holds. May I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Soley—
Lord McNally: In that case, may I ask the Minister to be aware that anyone speaking from the Benches once occupied by Lloyd George does so on these issues with a certain humility? I ask her to take forward what I thought was the spirit of all her answers. The warning of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that the issue is undermining our democracy is quite right. There is a case for all-party talks to be initiated to address the issue. I know that my party would willingly participate in such talks.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind if I say, tongue in cheek, that I wish that he had gone to Cheltenham today. I accept the comment about humility. He will know that, on all issues to do with electoral concerns, I believe that it is important to have a debate between the parties, as we have sought to do on the Electoral Administration Bill. There is much that unites us, some that divides us, but we are all concerned to make sure that our democracy thrives in the best possible way.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1351
Israel: Boundaries
11.28 am
Lord Campbell-Savours asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will meet representatives of the Government of Israel to discuss recent developments concerning Israel's boundaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, final status issues can be resolved only through negotiations and agreement between the parties. Under phase three of the road map, both parties will determine their permanent borders through mutual agreement. Settlement building and routing the barrier on occupied land is illegal under international law. It threatens the territorial contiguity of any future Palestinian state and is an obstacle to peace. The barrier's route should be on or behind the green line. On 2 March, we raised the issue of settlements and the barrier and discussed Israeli acting Prime Minister Olmert's future plans for the West Bank with the Israeli Prime Minister's special adviser.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not the recent statement of acting Prime Minister Olmert threatening to steal more Palestinian land and incorporate it within the Israeli state an open invitation to Hamas to hit back with violence? Are the actions of the Israeli Government not only provoking a lot of anger among Islamic populations throughout the world, but inevitably leading us into a world conflict and, some people believe, a world war?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are studying the speech that the acting Prime Minister has made. We are not yet in a position to know exactly where the lines will be drawn on the map, but early indications suggest that the matter is a threat to the contiguity of the area east of Jerusalem. In that sense, it is profoundly unhelpful to the peace process, and we will continue to argue that. I believe that it is one of the issues that causes greater disturbance, but there is no excuse for violence on either side in resolving a political discussion.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister confirm how far the planning and construction of the so-called security fence has been realigned in line with both international opinion and the Israeli courts, or does it still encroach deeply into widely acknowledged Palestinian territory?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the first thing to say about the barrier is that, in the view of the Israelis, it reflects their right to self-defence. We are concerned
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1352
about the route of the barrier because it is clear to us that some of it remains on occupied territory. It is true that there have been some adjustments as a result of rulings in the Israeli High Court, but that has not brought it back to or behind the green line. For those reasons, we still believe that its route is illegal.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the tragedy of the Arab-Israeli conflict over the past 30 years has been the deep ambiguity in Israeli policy, often supported by authoritative voices in Washington, between a two-state solution and a one-state solution in which the West Bank is incorporated into Israel? Does he also agree that we have to say loudly and clearly not only to the Israeli Government but to their supporters in Washington and in the Bush Administration that a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state is the only way in the long run to provide for a secure Israel in a peaceful Middle East?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I wholly agree: the two-state solution is the only solution. The prospects for any peaceful settlement in the region will be very poor without the two-state solution, and that must mean that the two states are both viable. I agree wholeheartedly. I make the observation that, when we call on Hamas or others to adopt and accept all the conditions of the road map, we are asking them also to accept the two-state solution as fundamental.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is increasing concern about the policies of the American Government, our Government, the EU and the Israeli Government towards Hamas? Having argued for years that democracy was essential in many parts of the world, are we not undermining that argument by trying to ostracise Hamas and make demands of it that it possibly cannot meet immediately, given that it appears to have implemented an effective ceasefire for the past year?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, of course we must respect the outcome of democratic elections—that is fundamental to any democratic process—but I do not think that it is unreasonable in any part of the world to say to those who are elected that with election comes responsibility. There is a responsibility to meet previous agreements and obligations, including those of the road map, which we urge on both sides. It is absolutely clear that the fact of being elected is not a licence to continue any kind of violence, and it is far from clear that the ceasefire has been wholly and objectively sustained.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |