Outcome of the EU Referendum

Baroness King of Bow Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question but I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have already said. In the interests of time, I will leave my comments at that.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, our constitutional role—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I have given way several times right from the beginning.

[Baroness King of Bow]

So have I.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Baroness, Lady King, comes first.

[Baroness King of Bow]

My Lords, our constitutional role in this House is to scrutinise legislation and say to those in power, “Pause, reflect and vote again”. It is not a popular role, and I know that I will not be popular saying it here today. None the less, the House of Lords should ask those with power—in this case, the British people—to do the same thing that we ask the Government to do all the time: pause, reflect and vote again. They can vote the same way if they want—the Government do that all the time, don’t they?—but let us bear in mind that the British people were asked if they wanted the UK to remain or leave the EU. They were not asked if they wanted to break up the UK. Given that that is just one of the disastrous likely consequences, it is only fair that they should have that opportunity. In light of the petition, will the Government consider setting up a Joint Committee with the Commons simply to weigh the arguments for and against a second referendum, which may be at the end of the two-year process? If the answer is no, what happens if the online petition gets more than 17 million British signatories?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I really do not have much to add to what I have already said. On the contribution of this House to our deliberations, I have set out how that should at least start. The people’s decision is clear on this matter.

Jo Cox MP

Baroness King of Bow Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

I knew Jo because we both worked for the Kinnocks, for the Browns and for the Labour Women’s Network—which Jo chaired—and we both had a habit of ending up in refugee camps. In the run-up to Jo’s election as an MP, she told me that my diary of being an MP had nearly put her off. “The thing is,” she said, “my constituency could never cause me as much grief as yours”. This is the only thing Jo was wrong about.

Jo has suffered more than any one of us in Parliament. Jo has given more than any one of us in Parliament. Therefore, Jo now represents more than any one of us in Parliament. She represents civilisation in much the same way as her murderer represents barbarism. Glenys—my noble friend Lady Kinnock—told us that Jo was no saint but let me tell you why she was an angel. She is one of a tiny percentage of the world’s population, a truly infinitesimally small percentage, who genuinely care about other people’s children as much as they care for their own and then act on that.

Apart from being an angel, Jo was also a proper policy person. She would want us to be talking about the policies as much as the personality. Because she was an angel, she would most likely be the first to point out that we must not just rage against her murderer. We must seek to understand what leads an isolated, mentally ill man to kill. What is it that whipped him up into a frenzy? Who is it who whipped him up into a frenzy, because it was not Jo? Or did all of us whip him into a frenzy? Was it Britain’s public discourse that whipped him into a frenzy? Then our cultural discourse must change and that must be Jo’s legacy—a kinder, more tolerant Britain.

In that kinder Britain, one of the first questions must be: just how many isolated and mentally ill people are there among us? Which policy failures have contributed to their plight? Why are those isolated mentally ill people not our priority, rather than our afterthought? Why are we not heeding the police when they say that the single biggest factor shared by extremists who carry out terror attacks, whether Islamic extremists or white British nationalists, is untreated mental health issues? Jo would ask why our mental health services are Cinderella services—in fact, she asked that in Parliament. Another question that she always asked was why poorer communities in general and refugees in particular are always the ones to pay the highest price.

A few weeks ago, speaking in favour of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs on refugee children, Jo said:

“Syrian families are being forced to make an impossible decision: stay and face starvation, rape, persecution and death, or make a perilous journey to find sanctuary … Who can blame desperate parents for wanting to escape the horror … Children are being killed on their way to school … I know I would risk life and limb to get my two precious babies out of that hellhole”.

It is hard to think about Jo’s two precious babies today, even if they have an extraordinary family and a father, Brendan, who radiates love and is surely the most dignified man in Britain. Jo concluded:

“Any Member who has seen the desperation and fear on the faces of children trapped in … camps across Europe must surely feel compelled to act. I urge them … to be brave and bold”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/16; cols. 1234-35.]

That is what Jo said and that is how I conclude this tribute to her. I urge everyone who contributes to Britain’s public discourse to be brave and bold—bold enough to be kind and brave enough to be tolerant. I ask parliamentarians to transcribe Jo’s kindness into legislation, because that is how we drain the hate that killed her. Tragedy brings focus. Jo represents us now in a way that others do not. Jo’s words mean even more now and, unless we heed the tone of her words, her life could have been lost in vain. Not just for the sake of Jo but for the sake of British democracy, that can never be.

BBC Royal Charter

Baroness King of Bow Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I have spent a lot of time in the towns of central Europe and I know just how important the BBC is to them. Indeed, I was very pleased to hear that while there were a lot of concerns about the World Service, the funding has actually gone up since the new arrangements were brought in.

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests, as I work for Channel 4. Turning to the BBC, it is, as my noble friend Lord Bragg put it yesterday,

“not so much the family silver as the family itself”?—[Official Report, 3/6/15; col. 432.]

As the Minister herself mentioned, a staggering 96% of the British population uses a BBC service every week. Given that, when going into negotiations on the licence fee, will the Government take into account the range and breadth of the BBC’s offer, so appreciated by the British public, because any wholesale reduction in funding will inevitably damage content and tarnish the family silver, if not the family? Lastly, did the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Low, not indicate a lack of clarity in the Government’s thinking?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, good points have been made, but we are embarking on a charter review and we need to consult the public, business and distinguished people such as your Lordships. Nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, but the underlying variety which the BBC produces, here and around the world, is obviously incredibly important and helps our place in the world.