Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Lord Dobbs

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I seem to be taking part in that bit of the proceedings where there are a lot of people who never had the honour of meeting Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I, among others in our nation and beyond, have known her only as our singular sovereign. I say that as a first-generation migrant to this country, coming from a republic, so my early experience was not of her as my Head of State. In fact, for many years after I arrived here, I continued to be a republican, but her example finally cured me of that heresy about 30 years ago.

The Queen’s presence among Commonwealth countries has been remarked on considerably today. There never was any doubt as to her status within that family of nations as its head. My first memory of seeing her was as a very young child when she and the late Duke of Edinburgh visited what was then East Pakistan, today’s Bangladesh, in 1961. My late father, who was an army officer, and my mother took us to Chittagong in a state of great excitement. My mother was of her generation, I think born in the same year, and was incredibly excited to see “the Queen”—there was never any question of needing a name—in the flesh. The Queen spoke beautifully, but more importantly for me as a child, she wore a beautiful dress. That sense of style stayed with her to the end.

In more recent times, I saw her in operation in her beloved Commonwealth when I served as a staffer at the Queensland CHOGM of 2002. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is not in his place; he was there as well in a slightly more significant role. It was a difficult one, after the 9/11 attacks, the problems of Mugabe and Zimbabwean democracy, and the expulsion of Pakistan after the Musharraf coup. There was a general sense of crisis. I said to my boss, who was a veteran of those meetings, “Oh my God, does she really need this on her plate?”, to which his reply was, “My dear girl, the odd coup or two in between these meetings wouldn’t even cause her to blink. She’s seen it all.”

A lot has been said about the late Queen Elizabeth’s personal qualities as our sovereign, but I also pay tribute to her deep knowledge and understanding of complex issues. After we as a country experienced the global financial crash of 2008, a furious debate was raging about all the assumptions that underpinned financial markets and capitalism. She asked to meet a bunch of senior economists at the London School of Economics, of which I am an alumnus. Nobel Prize winners were lined up wall to wall. After listening to the great and good in the world of economics, she asked the simplest of questions: “Why didn’t you see this coming?” This was the question being asked up and down the land in every house. She was always ahead of the game.

Tributes this morning spoke about the role faith played in the Queen’s life and the umbrella that the Church of England holds up on behalf of all faiths in our country. Speaking as another person from the Muslim world, I can say that the service that Queen Elizabeth represents, and which King Charles has so clearly articulated he wishes to continue, will sustain all their subjects in the weeks and years to come.

I am confident that we are, in our sorrow, one indivisible United Kingdom, irrespective of race, religion or creed. All of us mourn her passing. Our thoughts and prayers are with King Charles III and the wider family.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, it is truly humbling to take part in this debate after so many eloquent speeches from those who have known Her late Majesty so well, but I want to pay my own short tribute to a woman who has influenced so much of my life.

I suppose my most solid connection with Her late Majesty is the fact that I was born in the very same hour as her eldest son, our new King. I do not remember the occasion particularly well, but the birth certificate bears this out. As a young boy, I remember looking at the back of my pale hand and seeing these very blue veins and wondering just a little bit, “What if?” Fortunately, you and I have been spared.

Our late Queen came to us as a shy young woman and left us as the greatest of Queens, to stand alongside—perhaps even a step above—Victoria and the first Elizabeth. She was a Queen; a monarch; a woman; a wife who loved but one man ever, and who herself was loved by millions. She led us on the extraordinary and historic journey from an ageing and ailing empire to the enduring friendships of the Commonwealth, about which we have heard so much.

She was a woman who placed duty first, second and third, and who began it all again every single morning. That sense of duty and dignity, that unflappability, personal courage and wisdom, that love of Marmite sandwiches and, oh, that smile, and even shouts of joy—yes, she loved her horses, and winning. She was no pale functionary. She was an example of selfless leadership and we could have done no better; she was an example to us all. She was a golden thread that ran through the tapestries of our lives and the sinews that bind this nation together. They were bonds not of fear—that is the prerogative of leaders in some other countries—but of affection and of devotion; bonds which had tens of thousands of us pouring towards Buckingham Palace, not waving machine guns and severed heads but waving banners and shouting not chants of revolution but songs of joy. We were waving banners that told her how devoted to her we were and how much we loved her. That little word, “love”, keeps cropping up in our discussions about Elizabeth. How we rejoiced at her many jubilees. What fun we had, as other nations marvelled and quietly envied the very British secret that was Elizabeth.

Now the torch passes to another generation, whose sorrows today we share. We send our commiserations to our new King, His Majesty King Charles III, his Queen Consort, Camilla, and the entire family. We thank them for sharing with us the long, long life of such an extraordinary lady. We will bury her not only with sadness but with unquenchable pride and endless gratitude. Thank you, Ma’am.

The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Lord Dobbs

Friday 31st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I rise briefly to point out to the House that the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a comprehensive report on referendums in its session of 2009-10. Its conclusion on thresholds—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has commented on 40%—was that:

“We recommend that there should be a general presumption against the use of voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities. We recognise however that there may be exceptional circumstances in which they may be deemed appropriate”.

One of those exceptional circumstances that the committee, of which I was not a member at the time although I am now, had in mind was major constitutional change. I think that there is a general view around the House that the issue we are debating today is one of major constitutional change, and the House may therefore wish to reflect on the advice given by the Constitution Committee at that time.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, another hour, another group of amendments. We have 15 groups of amendments to get through today if we are to reach the end of Committee stage. That is my ambition, so noble Lords will understand if I attempt to be reasonably brief in responding to them.

These amendments go to the very heart of the differences between us. I believe in the Bill because I believe that we politicians have failed the people—it is as simple as that. We have flipped and flopped like a hooked fish dragged out on to the riverbank. I am also in favour of the Bill because I believe that ultimately it is the right of the people to decide their own future. Noble Lords pressing this amendment have an opposite view from me: they believe that Parliament should decide, not the people. In a representative democracy that is an entirely reasonable point of view, except—

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Baroness Falkner of Margravine and Lord Dobbs

Friday 24th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, this has been a very serious and significant debate. It is the sort of debate that we should have had on this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the dignified and detailed way in which he introduced his amendment. If I may be forgiven, because it is a very significant amendment, I will take a little time in dealing with it.

I see the logic of so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others have said. I take a different logic, and I need to explain that. This amendment goes right to the heart of why I got involved with this Bill in the first place. I do not want to destroy—far from it, I want to build, and I want to build trust. I do not want to fan any flames; I want to put them out once and for all. I have heard a lot during this debate about our relationship with our European partners, but I think that we should show at least as much if not more concern for the feelings of our own people.

Why do we need a date, or at least a timeframe, because that is what it is? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, explained with great eloquence and experience how complicated these things are, and he is right. That is why, despite all the promises that have been made, all the forests that have been felled in order to print political manifestos, nothing has been done. That is the cause of the distrust. People have been promised a referendum and have been denied it, time and again. Those are the flames of discontent that I wish to put out. We need a timeframe in order to stop that further decay of trust. Less than 10% of this House would have been too young to vote in the referendum in 1975, but more than 70% of the population of our country fall into that category. We are not representative of the country, least of all in its desire for a referendum.

Let us suppose that the referendum is held in October 2017. Of course, there will be shopping lists of what we have got right, what we have got wrong, where we have failed, where we will gain and where we will lose. But the job will not be finished then. These relationships are never once-and-for-all matters, whether we are in or out of the EU. We will have to deal with it and our relationship will carry on developing. Of course, there will be more to be done. It will not all be finished by October 2017. There is always more to be done. We will not be saying that the job is over once and for all but we will be asking the people if they are willing to support a future in the European Union or outside it.

Why 2017? It is because we as politicians have consistently failed. We have talked the talk but never walked the walk. We have never provided the referendum that we all have talked about at various times. The people want something more solid than yet more broken promises. The question I asked at Second Reading, which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was kind enough to acknowledge, was: if not 2017, when? Answer comes there none.

Let us go back eight years. During the past eight years, when would we have said that it was a good time for a referendum? I cannot think of one. There are always reasons not to do something.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Lord will surely recall that in 2008, on the Lisbon treaty, the Liberal Democrats proposed a referendum on this very question of “in or out”.

[Lord Dobbs]

The noble Baroness will understand that I could spend a great deal of time with a great deal of joy talking about the Liberal Democrat position on referendums and I would happily do that in public, but, if I may, I will pass over that and get on with the points that I want to make. There is always a reason for not doing something. We must be wary in this House of falling into the trap of implying, as several noble Lords have done, that there will never be a good time for such a vote. That is how many people will interpret much of what has been said here today: that too many people feel that there is a never a time to trust them.

This process of negotiation has effectively already begun, with changes to the budget, the common fisheries policy and other things, but I shall not go into the detail of that—now is not the time. Those negotiations will make more progress between now and the referendum, and I believe that we will make more progress after a referendum—that is what a relationship is all about. That brings me to the one hugely significant point that has been mentioned here time and again: that we are binding a future Parliament.

We are no more binding a future Parliament than we did when we passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which said that the election of the next Parliament but one will be held in May 2020. Exactly the same point applies for the date that is in this Bill. Let me pursue that analogy a little further.

If the next Parliament were to decide that the circumstances of the date of that election, in May 2020, were unacceptable for whatever reason, it would change it. If that next Parliament were to decide that the circumstances of the date of this referendum were not acceptable—that it had become fatally flawed perhaps by change in circumstance—it would change that, too. It would need a darned good reason to change it, one that people would find acceptable—not another game that we politicians keep playing with them over this. The people would have to be taken into their confidence, persuaded of any need for a change. However, if we keep putting off the date of this referendum, we will find that that distrust, the poison that Sir John Major said had entered the system—

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point: if it had any sense. I must remind the noble Lord that the Liberal Democrats had in their previous election manifesto a commitment to an “in or out” referendum, and where are they today? I mentioned at Second Reading that I do not want to make a party-political—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Dobbs]

May I just finish the point? I do not particularly want to make a party-political point of this, because, as I said at Second Reading, all parties are guilty of having changed their stance on this. That is why the people no longer trust us.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, would the noble Lord like to tell me on which page of our 2010 manifesto he believes it states we do not have a commitment to a referendum should there be any treaty change or transfer of competencies? Let me update him on Liberal Democrat policy if he wants further assurance—he clearly does. Our commitment is, as passed in September at the Liberal Democrats’ party conference, to have an “in or out” referendum, not just on the basis of treaty change but should there be any transfer or powers or further treaty in future. That is slightly further than the noble Lord’s own party has gone in terms of its last conference.