Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Baroness Warsi and Lord Harris of Haringey

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry for that slightly unseemly moment.

There have been many fine tributes and I am sure that there will be many more from all corners of the House. That reflects the way in which we have all been touched by the life of Her Majesty the late Queen. We have all suffered a loss but, until Thursday evening, I had not appreciated how much of a loss was felt around the world. I happened to be in Rotterdam at an international conference and I noted the number of delegates from all corners of the world who came up to express their condolences, in a way that reflected the fact that they recognised that, for someone from this country, this was a personal loss, like that of a family member. But, as they spoke, they also talked about their own sense of loss, because the Queen touched all of their lives, all around the world.

Continuity and permanence were part of what it was all about—the noble Baroness mentioned the words of President Macron. So what do we all remember about Her late Majesty? First, there are those acts of unsung kindness, such as the daffodils delivered, without any publicity, to hospital staff rooms during Covid.

Above all, I think that we most remember that mischievous twinkle. Theresa May has probably stolen the market with her anecdote about the cheese, but I too have a cheese anecdote, although it happened not to me but to a senior police officer, who found himself sitting next to the Queen at a small dinner at Sandringham. As is often the case, towards the end of the meal, a very large Stilton slowly circulated around the guests. In it was a spoon, with which you were supposed to dig in and that was your portion. So he dug in, but he could not detach the Stilton from the spoon. He tried more and more forcefully, until it flew off, and he decided that he would give up and pass the Stilton on. It reached the Queen and, looking him firmly in the eye, she dug the spoon in and then demonstrated that, when you pressed a little button on the side of it, the Stilton dropped out. That twinkle remained with him for ever.

We have all had our experiences and I think that we should limit ourselves to two anecdotes a speech at most. My personal anecdote is about when I was a council leader and, at the request of the children, the Queen came to a primary school in my borough. She had visited around 30 years before, when the school was reopened after it had been bombed in the Second World War. But it then suffered a fire and, when work on it was completed, the children wrote to the palace. I am very touched that she decided to visit. I was just a bystander, watching the way in which she arrived, engaged and so on. Of course, the children made presentations: first they gave a bunch of flowers, then there was a concert and then the Queen was presented with a papier-mâché crown, the best description of which would be of the exuberance with which it had clearly been put together. The twinkle with which the Queen received it, thanked the children and then spent far longer than her attendants had expected talking to and playing with the children was remarkable.

Several people have asked how we will, or should, remember Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. A number of noble Lords have talked about “Elizabeth the Great” or “Elizabeth the Good”. There are other suggestions and one I particularly like is “Elizabeth the Dutiful”. But for me and, I suspect, for many other people, it will be as the Queen with the mischievous twinkle—not just for us but particularly for the children.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris—I had had an indication that I was apparently due to speak before him.

There is a great tradition in Muslim communities of a 40-day period of mourning at the passing of a close family member. That period is spent, among other things, reminiscing, remembering and recounting stories of the deceased; it is part of the grieving process. So today I wish to recount a few short stories of Her late Majesty.

In 1977, at the age of six in a small town in Yorkshire, I celebrated the Silver Jubilee. The school had decided that the way we were going to do that was to dress up as Liquorice Allsorts—I have still not worked out why. So there I was, dressed in a box with pink and black stripes, marching around the town. For six year-old me, the Queen was a distant, magical, almost mythical figure, removed from my life in that Yorkshire town. Years later, in 2010, then in my late 30s, I joined the Cabinet and attended my first meeting of the Privy Council. This was my journey, but it was also one of many journeys that played out during Her late Majesty’s reign and an example of what was possible during it and how this country had changed.

On Thursday evening, as the sad news of the Queen’s passing came through, my daughter called me. As with Her Majesty, she is the first woman in our family to serve in uniform, and she reminded me that we both had had the privilege of working for Her Majesty—she had been our boss. For that, we will both always be grateful. In time and for future generations, Her late Majesty will become a historical figure, but, for us, she will for ever remain someone whom we had the honour of serving.

I want finally to mention pets. I never grew up with pets in our working class, mill-working parents’ home. They had enough mouths to feed with their children. It left me with a lifelong fear of animals. So when I was invited to a small lunch at Windsor Castle and found myself in the company of the Queen and her corgis, I am not sure who struck fear in me most. My face must have reflected my racing heartbeat and my sweating palms. In the way that many noble Lords have reflected on today, in that very human and warm way, the Queen sensed my anxiety, smiled, engaged me in conversation and put me at ease. She also left me in no doubt that, although I was her invited lunch guest, the corgis came first.

Yesterday at Friday prayers, mosques up and down the country held prayers and paid their respects to our departed monarch. She was a friend of Muslim communities, both here in the United Kingdom and across the world. The tributes that have poured in are testament to that. So in line with Islamic tradition, I say this. Verily we belong to God and verily to him do we return. May her journey hereon be one of ease and her eternal final destination be one of peace. Long live the King.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Warsi and Lord Harris of Haringey

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, a series of very important questions have been posed to the Minister. I want to add just a few more. It is important that there is clarity as to how this is going to work, for all the reasons that the Committee has touched on already about the possible blowback and the negative implications of this clearly not working or not working in the way that Ministers hope it will. There are some very serious and complicated issues.

I have still not fully understood—I appreciate what was gone through at Second Reading—why this is not, in practice, rendering an individual stateless. I am told that this is because it is just temporary. But the Bill contains the power to renew it for a further two years, and potentially indefinitely. First, what is the justification for having any power to renew a temporary exclusion order? Surely within two years it will have been possible to arrange this managed return, so why is it there? Surely it must imply that there is an expectation that some orders will be renewed and the thing will be continued and will go on and on. In which case, we need to understand why that is and why it does not in effect render the individual stateless.

Secondly, I want to hear from the Minister the implications in terms of how other nations will react to the fact that there is an individual in their country who has been labelled by this country as a suspicious person who has engaged in acts of terrorism, which is why a temporary exclusion order has been served on them. What are those countries going to do with the individual concerned? The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, raised the issue of torture, and I do not think that is fanciful. These are individuals whom the British Government have labelled as people we are so concerned about that we want to put restrictions on what is going to come back with them. Other countries are not as squeamish or civil libertarian as perhaps we are in this country or some other European states and they will say, “Right, if the British Government say this individual is potentially dangerous, we must react as though they are potentially dangerous”. We know what happens in some of those countries to people whom they regard as potentially dangerous.

The cynical—those who are trying to manufacture trouble on this, trying to feed the narrative that leads to violent extremism and jihadism—will say that this is exactly what the Government want. They want people to be permanently excluded. They would be delighted if they are then tortured in another country. That is what cynical conspiracy theorists will say about this, so it is critical that we understand what the status in another country will be of people whom we have labelled in this way. What will be the level of consular protection and support? Will this be by agreement with the countries concerned? What will we do in cases where we do not have the sort of relationship with the countries concerned that will enable that to happen? What if the country says, “Okay, the British Government say this person is dangerous and that he cannot fly. We aren’t interested in that. We are deporting him to the United Kingdom”? Presumably, if such people turned up on the doorstep, they would immediately be subject to a TPIM. I assume so, but that would not be a managed return; they would have just arrived because they had been deported. What if they are deported somewhere else? What happens about the recipient country?

These are important questions. The way in which we treat individuals about whom we have suspicion is extremely important because other countries will assume that because we are treating them as suspicious, there is something that they, too, should be concerned about, and they may take steps accordingly.

I hope the Minister will make the best of the very large number of notes that he has now received on all these points. These are important issues that we need to clarify. While we as a nation must do what needs to be done in respect of individuals who have been in a war zone and come back radicalised and potentially very dangerous, we need to understand how that process will work, and it is not clear to me that this is the most effective and least potentially counterproductive way of handing those cases.

[Baroness Warsi]

I have another question because we may not come back to this after today. It may well be that there are details out there in relation to what the managed programme will look like, including the potential deradicalisation programme and the Prevent work that would be done. Other than what is already available, for example though Channel, are there any programmes which the Government will present as options for people when they return? If there are, will the Minister supply me with details of them before the next day in Committee?

European Commission: President

Debate between Baroness Warsi and Lord Harris of Haringey

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I do not think that there was a question in there but the noble Lord made a point and I disagree with it.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

I do not think that the noble Baroness answered the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, right at the beginning. We know whom the Prime Minister and Government do not wish to see as President of the European Commission. Whom do they wish to see, or what are the elements of that candidate?

[Baroness Warsi]

I am not sure that the noble Lord would ever expect me to have that discussion at this Dispatch Box while discussions are ongoing at the European Union level. The noble Lord is aware of the process and it is important that that process is followed.

EU: Legislation

Debate between Baroness Warsi and Lord Harris of Haringey

Monday 4th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, there has been much speculation about the Government wanting to withdraw from arrangements such as the European arrest warrant and other collaboration on criminal justice matters. What representations have been received by policing bodies about the wisdom of such a course of action and what representations have been received from victims’ organisations which may not get justice for the victims they represent?

[Baroness Warsi]

I am not aware of what specific representation has been received in relation to that matter, but I will make sure that I write to the noble Lord and give him a full answer.

North Korea

Debate between Baroness Warsi and Lord Harris of Haringey

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

As the noble Lord will appreciate, this was a Private Notice Question. I am not sure if any discussions have taken place immediately, certainly within the past 24 hours, on the specific point that the noble Lord raises. We are, however, in general discussions with the South Koreans on this matter and, as I said earlier, they form part of the six-nation dialogue.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

Is it not the wish of the Government now to consult with America and China on how to deal with this situation? We cannot deal with it single-handed.