(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I hope the House will allow me to begin by saying how much I appreciated the opening speeches by the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who made a collection of remarks that set the tone for today’s debate. I have listened to some wonderful tributes from other Members throughout the day and I think today’s Hansard will be a remarkable document and a testament to the person in whose honour we are holding this debate.
I remember when I lost my own mother, as many Members will remember losing theirs. It is a very difficult thing to lose one’s mother and therefore my sympathy personally goes out to the King, from whom we will hear shortly, and his family, because of the loss they are suffering, which is of course combined, as others have said, with the duties that now fall upon the new King.
I am one of the Members of this House who did not meet Her Majesty and I am not going to claim that I did. I was in close proximity to her on more than one occasion—at the investiture when she gave my wife an OBE, and so on—but I am not going to claim that I had any personal conversations with her. Nevertheless, I recognise the enormous importance she had to the lives of people in this country and the impact she had on them. I am sorry in some ways that my dad is not here to make a speech about his relations with the Queen, because he certainly had many stories he could have told, including his rather unsuccessful attempt to cut her head off—not in any physical sense, you understand, but in relation to British stamps. Noble Lords can read all about that in his memoirs.
The more I have thought about it over the last 24 hours, the more I think it was no coincidence that we saw her fulfil the one last constitutional duty which only she could fulfil on Tuesday in appointing the new Prime Minister, and then sadly found that she became very unwell and died shortly after. I think she knew for weeks, as we all did, that she had this duty ahead of her and she held on to fulfil it. That would be absolutely typical, from everything I have heard anyone in this Chamber say about Her Majesty in the 70 years she reigned. I do not think it was a coincidence that she lived long enough to do it.
I also think she is a supreme example of a successful constitutional monarch, for which we should all be very grateful. Looking back over the years of her reign, I think that this country has moved, as has been indicated by others, from a position where we were still an imperial power and had an element of what you might call hard power. Over the decades it has been transferred into soft power, and she embodied that in a way that is going to be very hard to follow.
Her death is still a shock and for many people it will continue to be so. When we hear from the new King in a moment, it will begin to bring itself to bear on people’s lives. However, there is a great deal to celebrate. We all know that she lived to see an unrivalled Platinum Jubilee celebration. Although she was not able to take that much of a part in many of the events, the country, the nation and the Commonwealth had a chance to say thank you to her, and her own contribution was, in a way, to live to see it unfold in front of her. However, there is still a great deal of mourning now.
Reference has been made to the remarkable interviews that she gave when she was younger and her pledge to serve her country and the Commonwealth whether her life “be long or short”. It turned out to be remarkably long, for which we are all very grateful. She served her country as she promised to do and fulfilled her promise. You cannot ask for more than that and I do not think we will see her like again in our lifetime.
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. So much has already been said this afternoon, but at a time of grief it is better for us all to say something. In his message yesterday, our new King said that he and his family would draw comfort from all the sentiments of loss, mourning and gratitude that people would express in the coming days. We have heard many fantastic and moving speeches and it has been a privilege to be part of your Lordships’ House today to listen to them.
I will offer three brief thoughts. First, as has been mentioned and as the noble Viscount just captured in his tribute, the Queen’s last service was to invite her 15th Prime Minister to form a Government. Her face in that picture was still innately curious. To have that level of curiosity at the age of 96, after everything that the Queen had seen, was truly remarkable. Her curiosity was also captured, as we heard earlier, in that very simple question to those City financiers after the 2008 financial crash: “Why did no one else see that this was going to happen?” What a good question that she asked on behalf of so many of her subjects.
Secondly, we have heard that, for those who encountered her in the flesh, it was an unforgettable experience. She said that, for those who were just going to catch a glimpse, she deliberately wore bright clothes so that she could not be missed. Whatever we might think of His Majesty’s wardrobe, he is unlikely to wear that rainbow of colours that we got so used to.
As we heard, in 2012 the Queen visited Leicester with the new Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Edinburgh. It was a huge honour for both the city and county for that visit to be the first to any city in the Diamond Jubilee year. Of course, there was great excitement, but the tip that I took away, having watched Her Majesty during the lunch, was that it is acceptable to open your handbag, get out your lipstick and put it on after lunch. I have taken that tip and told many people about it; they found it a great insight into what was in her handbag—apart from marmalade sandwiches.
We heard a story from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, of someone encountering the Queen and not being able to speak. In my case, when I was appointed to the Privy Council, I forgot to breathe. As the black spots appeared in my peripheral vision, I suddenly realised that I had stopped breathing as I was so close to my monarch and was observing her in close quarters. We also heard about the kissing of hands. While one is not meant to go into the details of Privy Council experiences, it is fair to say that, however experienced in life you are, that ceremony of kneeling and kissing your monarch’s hand is probably the most agonising kiss that you will ever make in your lifetime.
Thirdly, the Queen was our voice of stability at key moments. We have mentioned her Christmas afternoon broadcasts. Of course, after the death of Princess Diana, when the country needed a moment of stability, she was the one who invoked the phrase:
“Grief is the price we pay for love.”
That is worth remembering today. She was also asked to speak in spring 2020 when the Covid pandemic had struck with such ferocity.
I have no doubt that His Majesty the King will provide that same stability and that our thoughts and support will be with him over the coming days and months as he takes on his new duties. In many ways, we began to see that transition of power when he was at the State Opening of Parliament in this House just a few months ago. As we have heard, all these events will be much more of a shock for everyone at every level of society and everywhere around the globe than most of us would have expected. God save the King.
Today, as we pay tribute, having been led so sensitively and eloquently by our Front Benches, we must remember that Her Majesty was patron of over 600 charities and each felt that they were unique to her. Hospices and hospitals benefited greatly from her support and she lifted the morale of everyone, even the sickest person. We saw that she herself lived fully and with her uniquely great dignity until death took her.
The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy had the honour of having Her Majesty as our patron since 1953—its charter having been granted by her grandfather, King George V, in June 1920. Every year of those 69 years, she sent her official royal greetings to our members to mark our AGMs. In 2020, the centenary of our charter, she particularly noted the vital contribution of physiotherapy staff in response to the Covid pandemic. Every year as president, I read out the message and the uplift in the room was palpable: it was affirmation by her while physiotherapists focused on their service to the health of the nation—her subjects—and all felt, and indeed knew, that she deeply appreciated their role. Every event that Her Majesty attended created treasured memories for all who were there. Every year, many enjoyed the honour of a lifetime: an invitation to one of the Queen’s annual garden parties, and some received honours in recognition of the impact of their work.
Her commitment to her citizens across the Commonwealth of Nations, as we have heard so eloquently, was evident throughout her long service. She unwavering dedication to all her subjects provided stability during many turbulent times. At the recent launch of the Commonwealth Tribute to Life—a memorandum of understanding across the Commonwealth—the friendship and support that she inspired were palpable among the transplant professionals in the room.
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on the work that he has done over so many years as the HRA president. He has kept this issue at the forefront of everybody’s concern and, of course, the latest idea that you cannot have the right coal in this country and you have to import it from Russia just demonstrates what a stupid situation we have got ourselves into, I suppose.
Heritage railways are loved by millions. They do not operate very fast or very frequently and, as other noble Lords have said, the issue has to be proportionate. It is not just trains; it is road vehicles—road tractors, I think most people call them—and boats, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has mentioned. Of course, fixed engines are also used to pump water supply; there is a very good one at Kew Bridge, which works very well. All these things have something in common, which is their Victorian engineering. It is amazing that these enormous great bits of steel, beautifully machined and very accurately made, work really well—when they do work, which is not very frequently.
I hope that the Minister will support and accept this amendment, but I have to remind my noble friend that he and I have a track record of causing trouble. About 10 years ago—the House was much emptier than it is tonight; there were probably about 25 Members here, which was below the limit—we got very angry about something. I cannot even remember what it was now, but we decided to divide the House. However, unfortunately, because there was not a quorum, it did not count. Noble Lords can imagine the kind of talking to that we got from our then Chief Whip in the morning, but it was absolutely worth it. I do not know whether my noble friend will do that tonight—he has probably got saner with age—but I hope that the Minister will look at this and say that it is a really good idea and accept it.
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I draw the House’s attention to my role as a non-executive director of the Great Central Railway in Leicestershire. The arguments have been well rehearsed, and, at this late hour, I do not want to detain the House, but I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has not got any less enthusiastic in his support for steam and heritage railways in the time I have known him, since we together set up the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail.
As we have heard, heritage railways across the country provide huge enjoyment, but they are also major catalysts for local economies in terms of tourism, jobs, apprenticeships and investment. All I say to the Minister, whose remarks I very much look forward to, is that I cannot believe that the Government intend to ban the burning of coal by steam railways or any other steam vehicles. I understand why the Government do not want to put this in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister is able to provide sufficient and very strong assurances. I know that noble Lords will listen very carefully to what she has to say.
I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I draw the House’s attention to my honorary presidency of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, which is the most visited tourist attraction in North Yorkshire, year after year. I am full of admiration for the mostly volunteer drivers and engineers who man it.
I was not going to speak, other than to support the work of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, both in tabling the amendment today and on the heritage railway generally. However, I beg to differ with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: in my experience, incinerators are heavily regulated and will continue to be so. I commend the work done in Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Germany on using incineration—or waste from energy, as it is now called—to get rid of both household and other waste and reintroduce electricity into the national grid.
If the Minister cannot write this into the Bill, I hope that she will give a verbal commitment that accords with the wishes expressed by the House this evening. That would be most welcome indeed.
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberFirst, the hon. Gentleman must be careful not to extrapolate too much from one case to another. The position on Iran and its nuclear programme is documented in dramatically more detail than any of the programmes of Iraq discussed before the war in Iraq. But of course we have established a clear convention in the House over the past 20 years about the commitment of our forces to military action and the need to consult Parliament and to have a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. That is a convention well understood across the House.
T5. Ministers will be aware of the concern about the case in Pakistan involving a young girl, Rimsha Masih, who is thought to be as young as 14 and to have learning difficulties and who has been accused of blasphemy. Can Ministers update the House on what representations they have made to the Pakistan Government about this case?
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the case. It has attracted a great deal of attention. It has been noticeable also that President Zardari has commented about it and raised concerns, as indeed have a number of Muslim clerics. There now appears to be some doubt about the individual who raised the accusations against the girl. I spoke to Paul Bhatti, the President’s adviser on religious affairs, just two days ago to raise the United Kingdom’s interest in the case and we will now watch events with interest.
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI do not believe that isolating Ukraine will help us in persuading the Government there to continue to move towards full membership of the European family of nations. I certainly welcome the fact that friends of Ukraine, including my hon. Friend, deliver that message clearly to the Ukrainian authorities.
3. What the Government’s priorities are for the European Union in the next year; and if he will make a statement.
The Government’s immediate priority is for the eurozone to find a sustainable response to the current economic crisis, and to do so in a way that protects the rights of all 27 member states to take decisions over areas such as the single market. Beyond that, we shall continue to press for tight limits on EU spending and action to promote growth and jobs, through free and open markets, and by cutting regulatory costs on European business.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Just in case the House has not debated Europe enough in the past 24 hours, can he shed any light on why the Leader of the Opposition thinks that the Prime Minister was mistaken to stand up to the French President at the weekend? Is it not essential that Britain is represented at the EU meetings this week for the sake of our economy?
Order. This question is on the responsibilities of the Prime Minister and not those of the Leader of the Opposition.