Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Baroness Seccombe Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to join in these tributes to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

I am afraid that my recollections will age me. Shortly after the Second World War, I served in a guard of honour for a visit by the then Princess Elizabeth to Armagh in old Ireland. I then recall the death of King George VI and Her Majesty’s immediate return from Kenya to the United Kingdom. I then recall the wonderful Coronation service in Westminster Abbey, when I saw television for the first time in my life, albeit in black and white.

At the beginning of this century, I had lunch with Her Majesty after the Maundy Thursday service in St Patrick’s Cathedral, Armagh. As one living near the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, I am keen to develop respect within the island of Ireland and, especially, to encourage co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s 2011 visit to Dublin has been mentioned. It was very much a healing event in the island of Ireland, but the subject does not end there. I was especially impressed by the way she spoke some words in Irish—perhaps using more words than many members of the IRA can use. Likewise, as has been mentioned, I was impressed by her visiting the cemetery in which there are the bodies of some dead republican terrorists. One year later, I recall Her Majesty’s visit to shake hands with a former leader of the IRA in Northern Ireland, then acting as Deputy First Minister at Stormont. When she met Martin McGuinness, he said, “Your Majesty, how are you?”, to which she replied, “I am still alive.”

I must remind your Lordships that there remains unfinished work on the island of Ireland. There is still some extremism in both communities on that island. On Thursday evening, when the death of Her Majesty was announced, there was a football match on in Dublin. The crowd there celebrated her death and then sang an evil song, “Lizzie’s in a box”. That is the reality of life for some people on the island of Ireland. We must not get carried away. However, in contrast, I am glad to say that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have decided to fly the Irish flag at half-mast on all public buildings, so there has been progress on the island.

We all respect the service of Her Majesty to all parts of the United Kingdom and her strong Christian faith, but we now dedicate our loyalty to King Charles III. We trust that he will serve for many years the people of the United Kingdom—in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—and of the Commonwealth. God save the King.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, in wartime, life was grim, with sadness all around. There was no TV, but a radio, which I was told to sit and listen to for the main evening news. I know many parents tussled with whether they should send their children abroad, but many followed the example of the King and Queen and kept the family together here at home in England. I think that this devotion of the King inspired his daughter to understand the suffering of others by being among them.

As this cruel war churned on, I found great enjoyment from watching the two princesses’ activities. I joined the school Sea Rangers, although you could not live further away from the sea then I did. We learned to march, and I love marching. My earliest sight of the Queen was when she stood in an upper window as Princess Elizabeth with her sister beside her as we marched in wonder in front of Buckingham Palace. I watched the Queen as she grew into this lovely young woman we came to know and love.

The declaration that she made on her 21st birthday moved me enormously, as she dedicated her life to us and all the people of the Empire. It was made with such devotion and humility. I have often thought that she must, like any other, have had an off day, but that sense of duty always came through. She carried on and nobody was aware of how she felt.

Many years later, as I followed her ups and downs of family life, I marvelled at her strength. She and other women blazed the trail for women to hold the most senior roles in society in addition to family responsibilities.

In 2004, it was a huge honour for me to be appointed an extra Baroness-in-Waiting—a pinch-my-skin moment as I drove into Buckingham Palace. Having an audience with Her Majesty was such a privilege. She immediately put me at ease as we chatted and, to my amazement, I suddenly said, “Ma’am, may I share a secret with you?”. “Oh, yes please”, she said, “I love secrets.” And there it will remain between us. As the time came to an end, she wished me well and said that she hoped I would not spend too much time waiting for planes to arrive and depart.

I loved every trip I made to airports to welcome and see departing Heads of State on her behalf, and I shall always be grateful for the opportunity I had. Without fail, the visitors said that the time they were to spend or had spent with the Queen would be or had been the highlight of their visit.

These final months without the support of her dear husband, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, must have been more onerous and lonelier as she continued her busy schedule, having recovered from Covid. She has, throughout my life, been there with her dazzling smile, so much loved and respected throughout the world. She prepared us for her eldest son to become Charles III, and I am sure she would approve of us giving him a hearty welcome. God save the King!

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate. We all know the troubles that the late Queen lived through. I have a list of them but, in obedience to the Chief Whip, I will jump straight to my conclusion for the sake of brevity. She navigated such difficult waters with the skill of a diplomat and as a stateswoman of the first order. She exhibited all the qualities that we heard so brilliantly set out in last evening’s speech by our new King. She must have willed herself to stay alive long enough to ensure the transfer of power just last Monday from one Prime Minister to another, which leads me to conclude that little became her in this life like the leaving of it.

The president of the Methodist Conference, with whom I have spoken, highlights what for him were her qualities of excellence: her resilience and her patent faith. In his name as well as my own, I hope noble Lords will allow me to pay tribute to our late Queen on behalf of the people called Methodist.

She was patron of the Boys’ Brigade. I was its president for several years, until recently. Members of the brigade, young men and women, were frequently called to do duty as marshals and stewards at royal garden parties at Buckingham Palace or Holyroodhouse. Her messages to the brigade were always bright, encouraging and supportive. She graciously allowed us to hold our special occasions in premises we could never otherwise have dreamed of, including St James’s Palace, where we saw so many noble Lords looking resplendent this morning.

She invited me and a small party of young people to Balmoral at the time of her Diamond Jubilee, just a few days after her appearance with James Bond at the opening of the Olympic Games. We giggled and chortled as we recalled that incident. Her manner in putting our young people, who had been totally overwhelmed on arriving at Balmoral, at their ease was simply wonderful. She had a natural touch.

A song we love to sing in the Boys’ Brigade has a chorus that runs like this. I am terribly tempted to sing it, but I believe I may be out of order.

Magistrates

Baroness Seccombe Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Seccombe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Magistrates’ Association’s request for an increase in the maximum penalty magistrates can impose from six to 12 months.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, we are committed to ensuring that the magistracy remains at the centre of our justice system. We are actively considering the possibility of increasing the sentencing powers for magistrates as one way in which we can make sure that this is the case.

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, that is indeed good news because in the Magistrates’ Association there is a well-trained workforce ready and able to take on that extra responsibility. That would certainly help with delays in the senior courts. Delays are the bugbear of any court, so how should courts assess a situation in which a defendant pleads not guilty in the magistrates’ court, the case is prepared on that basis and yet on the first day of the Crown Court appearance, as soon he can, he changes his plea to guilty? This is extremely expensive for the public purse and, more importantly, causes great distress to victims and other people involved in those cases.

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend makes an important point and, with her experience of the magistracy, a pertinent one. We very much respect the contribution that magistrates make to our criminal justice system. Some 90% of criminal cases in the justice system are dealt with by magistrates. As to her specific point, defendants are always encouraged to plead guilty— where appropriate, of course—at the earliest possible opportunity, and judges and magistrates very much bear in mind that, although there is a temptation for brinkmanship, the best way to show mitigation and reduce your sentence is to plead guilty at an early stage and save all the costs that my noble friend referred to.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Seccombe Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, as a former magistrate, I support all the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He has expressed the great fears of the magistracy that it is gradually becoming more and more centralised and that the point of local justice is disappearing. The thing that I have a little trouble with is how that fits into this Bill at this time, and I should be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Both have made important points about the concept of local justice and the massive boon that comes from a magistracy rooted in its locality and with a knowledge of the problems of an area and, indeed, of the people of an area. In previous debates I have given a run-out to the names Tommy Croft and Billy Quinn. They both worked in the local ICI works near to where I was born and they were both local magistrates. Everybody knew them and everyone, particularly the youth of the locality, dreaded appearing before them. That is the kind of benefit that we get from a magistracy which is rooted in its locality. But, alas, that was 50 years ago. Both my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, are right to say that, in our drive for various efficiencies and for uniform high quality, we must ensure that we do not squeeze out the benefit that we get from a lay magistracy. The magistracy performs a vital role in our justice system and the Government are highly supportive of both lay magistrates and full-time district judges sitting in magistrates’ courts.

In our White Paper, Swift and Sure Justice, we restated our view that the lay magistracy is one of our most important assets. The White Paper also sets out proposals to give magistrates new roles and responsibilities. We are currently working through the responses that we received and we will confirm our plans in due course.

I fully understand the request by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for information on the composition of this crucial element of our judicial system. I am delighted to confirm that official data from the Judicial Office are already publicly available on the judiciary website. That includes not only information on the number of lay magistrates in each of the 47 advisory committee areas and the name and number of district judges sitting in magistrates’ courts but also detailed information on gender, age, ethnicity and disability. Those data are published annually on 1 April. The number of lay magistrates in post as of 1 April 2012 was 25,155; the number of district judges sitting in magistrates’ courts was 141, with 134 deputy district judges. Perhaps I can illustrate the level of detail to which this information goes: 51.3% of lay magistrates and 29.1% of district judges were female; 53.9% of lay magistrates and 35.4% of district judges were 60 or over; 4.5% of lay magistrates identified themselves as having a disability; and 8.1% of lay magistrates and 2.8% of district judges were from black and minority ethnic groups. There is even more detail on the website, should noble Lords wish to visit the relevant links.

Given the extensive amount of official information on the composition of the magistracy already in the public domain, I suggest that a requirement for the Lord Chancellor to lay a periodic report before Parliament is unnecessary. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Prisoners: Voting Rights

Baroness Seccombe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, on the latter point, I am afraid I cannot give the House guidance. Without trivialising it, the answer is how long is a piece of string; how long will a committee ponder, deliberate and take evidence on these issues and then bring them forward to Parliament. The process is there and I cannot believe that it will be approached frivolously. It will be approached seriously by those who serve on the committee. They will bring forward their recommendations and then the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation in the light of that.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate on the way that this debate is handled by the media. I am pleased that the Government are concentrating their efforts on rehabilitation—I was very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, lent her support to that concept—and it is worth considering that this could be part of a rehabilitation process. That will be a part of the discussions that the committee will have to consider.

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, many people serve up to 50% of their sentence in prison and the remainder on release when, of course, they could exercise their vote. So are we not fulfilling our obligation to the ECHR already?

[Lord McNally]

Apparently not. A number of people have pointed out that those in prison on remand retain the right to vote and a range of others who are incarcerated also retain the right to vote. The noble Baroness points out that those who are released, having served part of their sentence, can resume their right to vote. However, in the view of the court, that was not sufficient to clear the hurdle that it believed was implicit in the Article 3 responsibility. The committee will look at the issues. If there is a way that Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, can find favour with, we will take that solution forward.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Seccombe Excerpts

Friday 27th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, I am delighted to support this Bill, which was explained so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the distinguished Convenor of the Cross Benches, who is taking it through this House as a Private Member’s Bill. I can think of no one better to pilot it through this House than the noble Lord. His professional career and his experience of listening to the horrific details of the appalling injuries that little children and vulnerable adults have suffered at the hands of those who were supposed to be caring for them must have been heartrending. I have always studied the outcomes of the inquiries conducted by the noble Lord and felt the frustration and sadness that he must have experienced. The loophole left by the 2004 Act has allowed guilty people to escape from the legal process through lack of evidence that would have brought them before the courts.

The Bill may be referred to as only a small Bill, but I see it as one of real importance because it seeks to right an appalling wrong that has existed in our legal system. Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 came under the heading, “Causing or allowing the death of a child or a vulnerable adult”. It certainly broke new ground and was controversial at the time. I accept that an area of concern is the treatment of, for example, a woman who has been shocked and injured, either physically or mentally, into submission by some evil husband or partner. However, we also have to accept that sadly there are women who are complicit in the ill-treatment of their children. I therefore feel that this Bill would enable the statutory authorities to get involved at an earlier stage and establish what has happened. Therefore, now is the time to extend the 2004 Act with this amendment.

It will mean that in a case in which it is obvious that a child or vulnerable adult has suffered serious harm that must have been inflicted by one of a limited number of members of a household, the case should not fail because of insufficient evidence to point to the person responsible. In other words, it will bring those offenders who were previously outside the court’s jurisdiction before the court to answer for their actions.

I wish the Bill swift success as it makes its way through this House, and believe that the sooner it is on the statute book the better for the justice system.