Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I gently remind all noble Lords that arguments deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 32, to which I have added my name. Giving the Chagossian people a say before their homeland is transferred to Mauritius is not an unreasonable demand; it is basic justice. At its heart lies the principle of self-determination embedded in international law and central to the United Kingdom’s own foreign policy tradition. Article 1 of the United Nations charter affirms

“the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

It is the very principle on which the United Kingdom has relied in relation to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, where referenda were rightly held and the will of the people to remain British was respected.

Self-determination is not a modern invention. It has underpinned the constitutional settlement of all Britain’s overseas territory. There is no principled reason why it should not apply here. The Chagossians are a people; they have their own language, culture and traditions, and a distinct identity that has endured despite expulsion. Above all, they have a profound and enduring connection to their islands. Despite their expulsion between 1968 and 1973, they have remained a cohesive people, the majority of whom oppose the transfer of their island to Mauritius, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, so clearly indicated earlier. It is therefore extraordinary that a Government who claim to champion human rights and the rule of law are asking this House to approve legislation that enables the most profound constitutional decision imaginable for the Chagossian people—the disposal of their homeland—without giving them any opportunity to vote on their future.

As mentioned earlier, even the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has expressed serious concerns about the lack of consultation, calling for the ratification to be suspended and for the free, prior and informed consent of the Chagossian people to be secured. This Government speak readily of historic injustice and reparation. I therefore ask the Minister: why are those principles not applied to the Chagossian people—a people who were expelled from their homeland? This is an injustice. It is an old grievance, and a living one. It shapes how this Bill will be judged, not only by the Chagossians but by the wider world.

International law does not require the silencing of people; on the contrary, it protects their right to determine their own future. To hand over their islands and to extinguish their British-Chagossian identity, without first asking their opinion, would be a terrible injustice, and it would not go unnoticed. It would be remembered by other people, not least those in the British Overseas Territories who look to this Parliament to uphold the principle that their future is theirs to decide. This amendment offers the House a chance to uphold that principle, to break the cycle of exclusion and to begin to right a historical wrong. For the sake of the Chagossians and for the integrity of this House, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.

Briefly, I also support Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which states that the Act will come into force

“only once all outstanding legal actions, including appeals, by the Chagossian people have been determined”.

The failure of the Bill in that regard is bizarre. A judicial review challenging the exclusion of the Chagossians from meaningful consultation has been heard, and we are awaiting the judgment, as many noble Lords have mentioned. The arguments have concluded and the ruling is imminent—possibly as soon as 12 January, one week’s time—yet the Government are pressing ahead regardless. This is not a technicality; it is a vital democratic safeguard. Proceeding with legislation and a treaty ratification before the court has ruled raises serious constitutional concerns.

Can the Minister say why this debate has been tabled before the court ruling has been delivered? Why not wait one week? Why has the usual three-day rule between Report and Third Reading been ignored? Other noble Lords raised this point. Do the Government wish to conclude the treaty and lock in the transfer before the court has had its say, possibly in favour of the Chagossians’ right to self-determination? If this is not the Government’s intention, they must explain their actions to this House.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will please the Government by being extremely brief, because I spoke at length at Second Reading and in Committee and have contributed to every Question we have had on this subject.

I agree entirely with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Meyer. Why do we have this indecent rush? Why can the Government not wait until the UK High Court case judgment? Why are we having Third Reading so quickly after Report? I just do not understand why the Government are pushing this so quickly, particularly when they know that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses are still away for the first part of this week.

Two very important developments have taken place, which have been referred to already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has 18 independent experts. Their role is to monitor the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is an important UN committee in Geneva—as a tribunal, it is equivalent to a court within the wider UN family—and its opinion is advisory.

I suggest to the two Ministers that they have made great play of the fact that, even though the other two UN court decisions were advisory, the Government felt compelled, for many reasons, to go along with them. We heard a lot about the rules-based system—although I do not know where that stands now after what has happened in Venezuela. We heard a lot about the global South and about our reputation in the UN. The Government have said that, for those reasons and many others, they have to go with those UN advisory judgments. Why are those judgments different from this one? If the Government are taking those advisory decisions so seriously, why do they not pause and listen to what the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has just said in what was, frankly, an excoriating judgment? Anyone who reads it can go away concluding only that this UN committee is very concerned about the treatment of the Chagossian people.

I would certainly echo the points made by a number of noble Lords—it is excellent to see my noble friend Lord Lilley here, after his travails in getting here from France—but one thing that struck me when I first dealt with this case as the Minister for the Overseas Territories, when I started meeting different groups of Chagossian people, was the extraordinary way in which they were forgiving of the UK Government in spite of the way in which they had been treated. Surely, therefore, Amendment 32 is not asking for a great deal. They deserve a referendum.

My second point concerns something else that has changed significantly in terms of the overall climate in which we are looking at this matter: the Chagossian Government who have been set up in exile. I have had a look at them. Every single one of the Chagossian groups that has commented on this initiative has said that this is a very good idea indeed. Some of the many aspects of dealing with the Chagossian people have been the in-fighting between different factions, the number of factions in different countries and the extent to which they often do not agree on anything. However, they agree on one thing: that this Chagossian Government in exile are a good thing and should be listened to. They are taking it incredibly seriously. In that spirit, we have had two major changes in the overall situation: first, the UN committee in Geneva; and, secondly, the setting up of this Government in exile.

For those reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will agree to postpone the whole progress of this Bill. I also urge the House to vote for Amendment 32—because that would send an incredibly strong signal not just to the Chagossian people, that we feel deeply about them, but to the Government—so that we can have a proper referendum, hear and consult the Chagossians and make up for some of the wrongs of the past.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, it is very humbling to speak after 20 such excellent speeches, of course including the maiden speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough. I shall centre my remarks on VJ day, a victory that is further from the minds and memory of many in Britain. Comparatively little has been said about the war against Japan, yet it was arguably even more brutal, contributing to more than 30 million deaths.

It is not just the numbers: it is the method of warfare. The torture and cruelty inflicted by the Imperial Japanese Army were among the most sadistic in modern history. The experiences of those who endured those atrocities were so horrific that many, like my father, never spoke of them. My father survived only because of the atomic bomb, as awful as it is. He never spoke of his experiences, except once briefly on a chairlift in the mountains. The conversation lasted no more than 10 minutes. In that short time, I glimpsed the horror, sadistic beatings, disease, medical experiments, malnutrition and inhuman conditions. He kept his mind alive only by teaching French to a fellow prisoner, who in turn taught him Russian. He was one of the lucky ones and was released after seven months. He weighed 46 kilos. He was convinced that, had the war lasted any longer, he would not have survived. Yet these stories remain largely untold.

The memories differ vastly between nations. Germany has confronted its past through Auschwitz memorials and public remembrance. Japan’s memories tend to centre primarily on Hiroshima. Its memorials honour the dead, but not the crimes. Perhaps this reflects the deeper cultural divide between western guilt culture, rooted in Christianity, and Japan’s reverence for its emperor. In Germany, Hitler was viewed as a monstrous aberration; in Japan, the emperor was worshipped. Japan did not issue an explicit apology until 1992. The silence around Japan’s war crimes was sealed over, with experiences left unspoken and often unresolved.

That silence came at a cost. For my father and many like him it meant a life marked by trauma never healed. He died at the age of 97 in 2009. I knew very little about what he had endured. Once a lively, outgoing and sportive man, as photographs testify, the father I knew was quiet, solitary and often unwell. The toll of what he had endured was written into his body and his soul. Apart from that conversation, he never spoke of his experiences, but the images I retain from that brief exchange told me all I could ever need to know.

Like most Allied prisoners of war held in Japanese camps, he received no mental health support. Post-traumatic stress was neither recognised nor discussed. Seeking help, especially for a man raised by the Jesuits, was seen as weakness, so he, like many others, carried his burden in silence. He never complained, he simply carried on. My father received several distinguished decorations for his war service and bravery. I discovered his medals tucked in a drawer only after his death. He never sought recognition.

His quiet resilience and that of his fellow prisoners reminds us of a different kind of endurance, forged in unimaginable hardship. Their generation bore suffering with remarkable dignity. Were my father here today, he would tell us that we need to spend more on defence. How often when I was a child did he tell me that all the signs were there in 1936, but no one wanted to believe that war was about to happen again. So will the Minister say what steps this Government are going to take to ensure that future generations understand the lesser-known sacrifice made by those who fought and suffered in the Far East, so that no child forgets what our parents and grandparents went through?

Ukraine

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, it is rather humbling to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I also welcome my noble friend Lord Soames and look forward to his maiden speech.

As everybody has said, after 12 months of conflict, death, destruction and huge suffering, everybody is wondering how long this war will last and how it will end. At the beginning of the war, no one believed that Ukraine could outlast the might of Russia. President Biden even offered Zelensky and his Government exile in the United States. Zelensky’s famous refusal,

“I need ammunition, not a ride”,

and the amazing resilience and courage of the Ukrainian people that followed, stunned the West. Helping Zelensky contain Russia’s aggression soon turned into a proxy war for the West.

Since then, as we heard earlier, the West has provided a massive amount of military and economic support. With Germany’s recent agreement to release the Leopard 2 tanks, more than 300 heavy tanks will be delivered to Ukraine by European countries, while the USA will provide 31 Abrams tanks. Yesterday our Prime Minister announced that Britain could also provide fighter jets and train Ukrainian pilots.

Unsurprisingly, Zelensky and the West believe that Ukraine can win the war outright. But Putin too believes that he can win the war outright. He has shown no sign of intending to stop the war, scaling down his demands or looking for a way out, let alone making serious proposals for peace. For Putin, this is a crusade. He and his siloviki—men of force, mostly ex-KGB—are in an existential struggle against the West. For Putin, as much as for them, it is a matter of life and death. There is no chance to back down now and, if Putin goes, they too lose everything. Their only interest is to keep their wealth, and they are too afraid to raise their voices and criticise Putin anyway.

A recent report published by the Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service concluded that we should not expect Mr Putin to give up on his faltering war, and should bury any hopes of a successor toppling him anytime soon. The report goes on to say:

“Putin is playing for time, believing that Ukraine and the West will wear out before Russia.”


Ukrainian intelligence services, as the Minister pointed out, believe that Putin is planning a major counteroffensive, maybe as early as on 24 February to mark the beginning of his “war against the Nazis”.

The Russian army may be disorganised and the number of deaths, injured and deserters may be in the region of 200,000, but Putin has a large reserve at hand. There are three times more Russians than Ukrainians. This is reminiscent of Stalin during World War II; the Germans would kill 10 divisions, but 20 would resurge. Putin’s war stock is vast, while the delivery of western tanks may not arrive in time for the upcoming battle—and let us not forget that Russia is one of the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

Dr Kissinger recently questioned whether we were sleepwalking into a conflict similar to World War I, which none of the European leaders would have entered into had they foreseen what would follow. The President of Croatia—a NATO member—criticised western nations for supplying Ukraine with heavy tanks and other weapons, saying that it will only prolong the war and adding that it is “mad” to believe that Russia can be defeated in a conventional war.

I am enormously proud of our Government’s unwavering support and of the lead role they have taken immediately, not only in military aid but in economic and humanitarian aid and in their diplomatic efforts and successes with other countries.

However, in view of Putin’s revisionism, and Russia’s nuclear weapons, oil and gas, skills in cyber technology, and its proximity to Europe, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly what our strategic aim is and say how we can achieve it. When we look at Russia, we can be clear about its strategic aim—which is possibly also to take control of the nuclear power in Ukraine. Ukraine’s strategic aims are also clear but can all the NATO nations have the same aim? How can we ensure that we work together to make a safer future for our country and the Ukrainians?

Ukraine: Update

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The information I have is that we have sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals and 120 entities; and, with our allies, we have frozen over 60% of Putin’s war chest foreign reserves, which is worth about £270 billion. Open-source evidence indicates that several of Russia’s weapons manufacturers have suspended their activities completely or partially due to sanctions and the lack of spare parts and components. Sanctions against companies such as Kronstadt, the main producer of drones used in Ukraine, is certainly making it far harder for Russia to resupply its front line.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, given that there are approximately 500 political prisoners in Russia, can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government can do to try to push for their release in exchange for all the spies hanging around in the United Kingdom? I also reiterate that the young population is very much against the war; the older population is basically ignorant, getting their information from the television and therefore still sort of supporting the war, but a lot of mothers are getting quite upset about the number of deaths.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for referring to that interesting issue of public opinion in Russia. I have stumbled upon a bit of my briefing that I was trying to find: a Statement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made in the other place on 20 December. He noted:

“Russian public opinion is starting to turn. Data reportedly collected by Russia’s Federal Protective Service indicated that 55% of Russians now favour peace talks with Ukraine, with only 25% claiming to support the war’s continuation. In April, the latter figure was around 80%.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/22; col. 155.]


That is a very interesting indicator of where opinion is going.

I am afraid that I do not have information on the plight of prisoners within Russia. That is very much the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I can speak to my noble friend Lord Ahmad to see if we can provide any more information.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I made a mistake in not noting the helicopter incident at the beginning of my remarks, even though it was in my notes. So I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on that subject. I apologise for keeping the House, but it is important, from the point of view of His Majesty’s Opposition, to put that on the record.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I will also add that, apparently, a lot of children were killed in that incident, because the helicopter landed next to a school.

Ukraine: Russian Drone Attacks

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I do not know whether the Attorney-General has been consulted, but the noble Lord will be aware that Iran, for example, is breaching United Nations Security Council resolutions. If it continues to do so, there will be continued pressure at United Nations level to address that. We all take very seriously the involvement of Iran and, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, indicated, if Russia were to expand that procurement base, we would look at that with the utmost gravity.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, as Russia is increasing its attack on Ukraine, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to send more generators to help the Ukrainian population ahead of the harsh winter?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. We have been able, as a country, to provide some very meaningful support, particularly on the military side. We have developed a package to support Ukrainians through the winter, including 25,000 sets of winter clothing, so that they are more effective on the battlefield and able to withstand the very low temperatures in Ukraine at this time of year. As my noble friend will be aware, we have also embarked on a number of other measures to support Ukraine in dealing with its damaged critical national infrastructure, and by trying to find ways to help it rebuild its damaged and destroyed buildings.

Ukraine Update

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I probably have limited information to give the noble Lord, but as I said earlier, we have what we think is a reasonably reliable report on the current state of the site. The Government are in contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and we continue to support its impartial efforts—that is important; the agency is impartial—to ensure the safety and security of Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Of course, Chernobyl is one of them, but there are others. There is no more specific information I can give to the noble Lord at the moment, but I reassure your Lordships that we continue to monitor the situation closely.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I hear that Lavrov is now accusing the Pentagon of developing biological weapons in Ukraine, which is clearly to justify what the Russians plan to do themselves. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government should support the BBC as much as they can—BBC News Russian and the BBC World Service—to deny that fake news?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. The extent of disinformation and misinformation pedalled by President Putin and his Government is a matter of huge frustration and one that causes anger. It is frustrating, but I reassure my noble friend that we are responding to that. We found that one of the best ways to respond is to release intelligence which we feel we can safely release. Therefore, to some extent, that effectively pre-empts what Russia may be minded to accuse people of doing.

Let me say in passing that I think we are all full of admiration for all the journalists who have been out in Ukraine and so bravely reporting back, not least for the BBC. I think all of us are watching our journalists and BBC correspondents broadcasting from Kyiv, and they seem to me to reflect the very best elements of journalistic courage and professionalism. I want to publicly commend that, but reassure my noble friend that we are doing everything we can to counter disinformation.

Ukraine

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday, 24 February 2022, is a date which will live in infamy. President Putin told his people that the purpose of the invasion was to de-Nazify Ukraine. The repulsive irony of his lying statement is that, from the very first pictures, the Russian assault looked just like the Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939, or of Russia itself two years later. Putin’s Panzers are on the warpath in a manner that would make Hitler proud.

I, like many others, bought into the myth of Putin, the cool-headed, chess-playing strategist who was never going to invade Ukraine. At the beginning of the year, Putin sent to Washington and NATO Headquarters in Brussels two draft treaties. These set out his demands: Ukraine never to join NATO and NATO to retreat to the status quo ante the collapse of the Soviet Union. These demands went beyond the acceptable, but there was something in them that we might have been able to work with. However, by invading Ukraine, he has blown diplomacy out of the window. By personally deceiving both President Macron and Chancellor Scholz, he has lost all trust. His aggression will strengthen NATO’s unity and determination to protect its eastern members. That is the very opposite of what is to be found in these draft treaties—the very opposite of his wish to reverse the security arrangements put in place after the Cold War.

Europe will now become an armed camp, in which NATO is revived by the adrenaline shot of Russian aggression. Putin, in his derangement, has thus sabotaged his own ambition. What we have to fear in Putin is not an ice-cold calculating machine but a leader become unhinged by his grievances over, as he sees it, history’s injustice and the West’s indifference to his demands. We should have seen this coming and done something to prevent it.

The question now is how far Putin’s megalomania will go. Ukraine is not the limit of his ambitions, as many noble Lords have pointed out. Even as we speak, the Balkans are boiling up again, with Serb revanchism aided and abetted by Moscow.

As it is, Ukraine is ablaze on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945. Short of nuclear war, the situation could not be more dangerous. Putin has smashed the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, driven a coach and horses through the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, brushed aside the OSCE and violated the 1994 Budapest understanding. To all of these, Moscow had put its signature.

But, as always, we in the West judge our enemies by our own standards rather than theirs. We believed, or wanted to believe, Putin’s assurances that he had no hostile intent towards Ukraine, even though he had been amassing troops, launching cyberattacks and staging provocations. Of the justifications he has publicly given for attacking Ukraine, not a single one is true. Now, too late in the day, we realise that he had been planning this all along, drip-feeding false information to his own people since 2014. The West’s naivety will be a lesson that should remain with us for the rest of the century and beyond.

As someone of Russian blood, and some Ukrainian blood as well, and as someone whose family was arrested and killed by the Bolsheviks, I can only weep for the Ukrainian and Russian people. They will be the ones who pay the price for Putin’s lies and deceptions.

Can my noble friend the Minister say whether Her Majesty’s Government will discuss with NATO allies the urgent need to increase defence budgets so that our alliance can offer serious deterrence to Russian aggression? Is she confident that the FCDO has adequate Russian and Ukrainian expertise, including language speakers, on hand?

Ukraine: Military and Non-military Support

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that we do not comment on operational matters in detail, and he will understand that that has been a respected tradition for successive Governments, so I cannot comment on that specific detail. However, I can answer a question he asked me last week, to which I omitted to respond, on the allegation that Germany denied access to its airspace. Germany did not deny access, because the UK did not submit a request. There has been no dispute between the UK and Germany on the issue; in fact, the Defence Secretary has plans to visit Germany shortly to meet the Defence Minister.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I declare my interest as trade envoy to Ukraine. Has not the United Kingdom given more support to Ukraine than any other European country, and should not some of our neighbours pull their socks up and do a little bit more to support Ukraine against Russia’s aggression?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister outlined earlier today in the other place, in fact, significant support has been forthcoming from other nations. As a prominent member of NATO—it being the umbrella under which the UK has been channelling a lot of its activity, along with the United States—there has been a recognition by member states that they need to flex their muscles and make their contribution. The evidence is that they are doing that, and we are very grateful to them.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, two things struck me about the gracious Speech. The first was the sense of stability and reassurance offered to the nation by Her Majesty the Queen. The second was the ambition of the programme she announced.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the integrated review. For the first time in decades—perhaps ever—the Government have pulled together all the threads of foreign and security policy. Ministers are to be congratulated. It is the work of a Government determined to seize the opportunities presented by Brexit.

Some have expressed surprise at the Government’s success in the May elections. Usually, a governing party will lose seats after so many years in power, but the 2019 general election was as much a break with the past as any change of ruling party. The people brought to power the first Brexit Government—and with a stonking majority. The May elections reinforced their decision. Some say that this is no more than a passing “vaccine bounce”, yet no less an authority than Michel Barnier has said that Brexit gave the UK the means to vaccinate its population long before our neighbours in the EU. That same confidence and boldness has given us the integrated review, which in turn has given us a coherent framework in which to realise global Britain.

Global Britain should not be hard to understand. It is deeply embedded in our DNA: a sovereign nation with allies and partners around the globe—some new, some old—tied together by free trade, common security and common interests; a nation of firm principles, tempered by pragmatism. This year, 2021, is the year of the summits. It will give us many opportunities to apply these principles. We will be at the centre of international negotiation.

Take these three examples. First, we hold the presidency of the G7; the summit will take place in Cornwall next month. The Prime Minister will lead the debate on issues of the highest importance to our world. We will create nothing less than a 21st-century version of the rules-based system of international order, which has served us so well. Secondly, we will host COP 26, in November, in Glasgow. For some, this is the issue of our time. Once again, it will be our task to lead discussions and seek agreements.

Thirdly, this month, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will sail east, at the head of an international naval force. It will be a clear demonstration of Britain’s tilt to the Indo-Pacific region, where we have growing commercial and security interests. We have already applied for membership of the CPTPP. Our impressive Secretary of State for International Trade has already signed a co-operation agreement with Japan, along with 66 other countries. Now, it is the turn of the Royal Navy, with allied ships, to uphold freedom of navigation in international waters.

The notion that, after Brexit, the UK would shrivel into a lonely, inward-looking island was always a fool’s delusion—the denial of centuries of history that long pre-date the European Union. It was the great 19th-century Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who showed us the way ahead when he said:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/1848; col. 122.]


Finally, I welcome my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on her introduction to this debate.