The UK formally recognised a Palestinian State on 21 September 2025, as part of our ongoing effort to  protect the viability of a two-state solution and create a path towards lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Dr Husam Zomlot, the Head of the Palestinian Mission to the UK, on 15 September 2025 met MPs in Parliament  as we have been calling for recognition to celebrate this outcome. 

A declaration recognising Palestinian statehood results in the UK:
• Recognising Palestine as a state, acknowledging all the legal rights and obligations of statehood, and expecting the State of Palestine to abide by previous commitments entered into by the PLO or PA, specifically the Oslo Accords.
• Noting that the UK recognises Palestinian statehood over provisional borders, based on 1967 lines with equal land swaps, to be finalised as part of future negotiations.
• The Foreign Secretary will write to her Palestinian counterpart in due course to lay out the process for establishing full diplomatic relations.
It does not mean the acceptance of Hamas as a legitimate governing authority in Gaza, or remove the demands we have made of the Palestinian Authority to conduct extensive reform. The UK has a historic and moral responsibility to protect the viability of the two-state solution. Having recognised the State of Israel in 1950, the time is now right to recognise the State of Palestine in 2025. For years, British governments have called for a two-state solution but have only recognised one state.


Recognition of Palestine reflects the equal rights of and equal esteem in which we hold the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. In July, the Prime Minister pledged to act if the situation on the ground did not change. Since then, the situation on the ground in Gaza has worsened, Israel continues to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank, and Hamas is still holding the hostages. He firmly believes that the UK has a moral responsibility to do everything it can to support a peaceful future for Israel and Palestine–via a two-state solution, the prospect of which is slipping further away. That is why we are acting now.


A two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state led by a reformed Palestinian Authority, is the only path to a lasting peace for the Israeli and the Palestinian people. 

HILLSBOROUGH LAW: COMMONS INTRODUCTION the Rt Hon David Lammy MP has confirmed that the Bill will be introduced.

It has been 36 years since the Hillsborough disaster. What happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again:
• Police officers lying and changing witness statements to protect reputations;
• Families bereaved by a major disaster facing an inquest process with no funding for legal representation - while public bodies were free to appoint multiple legal teams to protect their own interests;
• A 25-year fight for an inquest to reach the right conclusion; and
• Investigations undermined by a lack of a duty of candour.
After campaigning for this these injustices, state failures and institutional defensiveness have continued – as we can see through the Horizon scandal, Infected Blood scandal and Grenfell Tower, among many others.
I am pleased the Government have said this must end. Trust and justice must never be concealed by the state again. The families have described that the Hillsborough Law as being four pieces of a jigsaw: a duty of candour; individual accountability; full disclosure of evidence when things go wrong; and legal representation at inquests.

The Government has introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill – the Hillsborough Law. The Bill includes all four pieces of that jigsaw. Parity and Legal representation at inquests. At the first Hillsborough inquest, families received no public funding for legal representation. By contrast, senior police officers were represented by five separate legal teams - with state funded legal representation also provided to a range of other public bodies.

Under this Bill,  the Government will provide legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests in England and Wales where a public authority is an interested person – with no means test. In practice this will mean that at any inquest in England and Wales where the NHS, a government department, a local authority, or the police or any other
public authority has their own legal representation – so will bereaved families. People bereaved through public tragedy will never again have to face the inquest process unsupported – or be forced to raise money from friends  and family to ensure their voices are heard. This is a landmark step in rebalancing the system. It represents the largest expansion in legal aid in over a decade. But legal aid is just part of the answer to tackling the disparity in power between the state and bereaved families so we will go further.

This Bill will:
• Create a duty on public authorities to engage legal  representation at inquests only if, and so far as is, necessary and proportionate, with consideration given to the comparative position of bereaved families;
• Include a requirement for public authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor setting out clear principles in respect of their conduct and behaviour as well as that of their legal teams at inquests and inquiries;
• Introduce a new power for coroners and inquiry chairs to raise concerns over the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams.
• Place an overriding objective on the Court and the inquiry chair to ensure that affected persons are able to fully participate at proceedings, which Interested Persons will be expected to support.

Duty of candour, individual accountability and full disclosure.
Under our Bill, public officials across the whole United Kingdom will be bound by duties of candour at all times.
And breaching those duties will come with criminal consequences. Public bodies and officials will have powerful new obligations to help investigations to find the truth: providing information and evidence with candour; proactively; and without favouring their own position. 

This legal duty will apply to statutory inquiries and coroner's investigations, strengthening and reinforcing existing powers to compel evidence. It will also apply at non-statutory inquiries, giving chairs new powers to require public officials to assist them in finding the truth. This will ensure that when things go wrong, public servants serve the interests of the public, rather than protecting their own reputation. Had this new law been in place at the time of Hillsborough – these new rules would have applied to both the Taylor Inquiry and the original inquests.
This legal duty is not limited to the public sector. It will also apply to some private bodies: those delivering public
functions; those with a health and safety responsibility to the public; as well as relevant public sector contractors -
such as in the Horizon scandal. So, at Hillsborough, the duty would have applied - for example - to Sheffield
Wednesday and the Football Association. This duty will also extend and apply UK-wide. Public officials will also be placed under new duties of candour relating to their day-to-day work. These “professional duties of candour” will be set out in mandatory ethical codes - with potential consequences up to and including gross misconduct for those who do not comply. At Hillsborough, these vital new obligations would have applied to all public servants involved: including the police and civil service.

The Bill also includes a new offence of misleading the public - aimed squarely at those in our public services who seek to cover up the truth. This offence has been designed with Hillsborough at the front of mind.
And to ensure that the criminal law continues to address the most serious wrongdoing by those in public office - including cases where public servants breach their duty and it risks or causes serious harm or death - the Bill reforms the current common law offence of “misconduct in public office”. Following recommendations by the Law Commission, the common law offence will be abolished and replaced with two new statutory offences that more clearly articulate the elements of the offences, and who is subject to them. The new offences are “seriously improper acts”, and “breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury”.

Legacy
When it comes into force, this legislation will stand as part of the legacy of Hillsborough and change the country for
the better. As a law for everyone who has suffered when truth and justice has been concealed behind the closed
ranks of the state. And as a tribute to the tenacity of families who have fought for truth and justice over so
many years.

And a tribute to the 97 who lost their lives on that tragic day.

I was a signatory to a letter coordinated by Antonia Bance MP.

The letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Rt Hon. Peter Kyle MP, urged the Department to consider the support that the Government could provide to the Jaguar Land Rover supply chain in the event of the shutdown lasting for a prolonged period.

The cyber attack, launched on 31 August 2025, forced Jaguar Land Rover to pause production, without any assurance of when production is likely to resume.

/*! elementor - v3.19.0 - 07-02-2024 */.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}

The Bill came before the Commons 16 September 2025 for debate and votes on the Bill at Second Reading.

The Sentencing Bill aims to ease prison overcrowding while keeping dangerous offenders in custody longer. It introduces a new “Progression model” for determinate sentences, allowing misconduct in custody to extend time served. On release, offenders may face stricter supervision. The Bill also strengthens community and suspended sentences.

I voted no to a reasoned amendment by Robert Jenrick which failed: Ayes 78, Noes 292.

The motion was then put that the Bill be read a second time, I voted aye and the Bill passed: Ayes 340, Noes 77.

The Bill will be scrutinised in a  Committee of the whole House. Once MPs have gone through the detail of the bill it is reported, with any amendments made to it, to the House for the next stage of its progress.

The Bill passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords and returned to the Commons for consideration on the Lords’ amendments on 15 September 2025. As I chaired the Bill Committee I was unable to vote. There were 12 amendments selected for debates and votes:

Lords Amendment 1, imposes a duty on employers to offer a guaranteed hours contract after being requested by an employee. Motion to disagree passed:  Ayes 326 Noes 160.

Lords Amendment 8, sets the period of short notice for the purpose of payment for short notice shift cancellations at 48 hours. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 316 Noes 172.

Lords Amendment 7, removes the employer's duty to make a short notice payment where they provide the worker with more notice of a cancellation of 48 hours or more. Motion to disagree passed:  Ayes 330 Noes 158.

Lords Amendment 23, removes the day-one unfair dismissal right and replace it with a six-month qualifying period. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 329 Noes 163.

Lords Amendment 46, requires the Government to create regulations extending unfair dismissal protection for whistleblowers and impose a new duty on employers to investigate protected disclosures. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 314 Noes 178.

Lords Amendment 47, extends the current right to be accompanied to meetings to include a certified professional companion. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 327 Noes 164.

Lords Amendment 48, create a legal definition for seasonal work. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 328 Noes 160.

Lords Amendment 49, requires the Secretary of State to initiate a consultation on Part 1 of the Bill and report to the House of Commons and Lords within 18 weeks of that initiation. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 332 Noes 160.

Lords Amendment 60, amends restrictions on the employment of young people in industrial settings to allow them work on heritage railways or heritage tramways. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 318 Noes 170.

Lords Amendment 61, re-establishes the requirement for trade unions to opt out their members from contributions to the political fund, where the union has one, unless a member expressly requests to opt in. Motion to disagree passed:  Ayes 330, Noes 161.

Lords Amendment 62, retains the requirement for trade unions to meet a 50% turnout threshold of those entitled to vote in a ballot. Motion to disagree passed:  Ayes 330, Noes 161.

Lords Amendment 121, which duplicates the effect of proposed new section 148M which would allow school support staff employers  to employ their staff on equal or better terms and conditions than statutory minimums set by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. Motion to disagree passed: Ayes 316, Noes 161.

The Bill will return to the House of Lords for consideration of the Commons votes.