Sudan
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I too am grateful to the Minister for arranging this debate, in which we are hearing extraordinary expertise—with some exceptions. In particular, there are former Ministers for Africa. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has had an extraordinarily distinguished career, and I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. The speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was truly remarkable.
It is noticeable in what we have heard so far that the history of Sudan has been very present to us. I echo the words we have heard more than once: that this is not simply a conflict between two major power groups seeking power in Sudan. It is based in the fragility of a society that has seen war more than it has seen peace since Sudan became independent—both in what is now South Sudan and in Sudan itself.
Sudan is already a human catastrophe on an extraordinary scale. It is using vast quantities of humanitarian aid and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that leads only to the most temporary of solutions. In Sudan and elsewhere, crisis follows crisis, and countries like our own are caught between the equally atrocious options of sticking plasters or ignoring the crises. We often have warnings. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his visit in June to Khartoum and the extraordinary Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo, with whom I spoke about a month before the war broke out. He said, “We sit in Khartoum with two armed groups looking at each other over the sights of their guns, and imminently, there is going to be trouble”. It was not a surprise.
In that context, I want to acknowledge and welcome the cross-party support, the very hard work of the FCDO, and the Minister’s clear speech. I start with one word of caution. The Minister rightly said that we must return to proper, democratic civilian rule, but as we have seen elsewhere, peace with an authoritarian Government is better than no peace at all. I hope that that is not so much of a red line that we will not work to establish the ceasefire and stability that will enable civilians to take over.
We cannot, and do not, abandon victims of war to famine. However, beyond the cause of humanitarian aid, there lie deeper questions for this debate. How can we anticipate such disasters, and what means are there to prevent them or cure them once they happen, whether in Sudan or elsewhere? I think especially of the DRC. How do we wage peace—be those to whom Jesus refers in the Beatitudes as blessed, and known as children of God?
The security and defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, presents an important and welcome opportunity to build a new pillar in the way we structure our defence and security operations. It was a pillar notably absent from the two integrated reviews, an issue I will come back to in a moment. A peacebuilding option, well developed and acting in areas of fragility, would extend our influence, protect our interests and, as has been said several times, guard against fresh waves of migration. I already hear anecdotally from within the diocese of Canterbury that I serve, and its south coast, that those meeting people landing in boats find that a very high proportion are coming from Sudan.
The problem in Sudan is historically driven. It goes right back to the 1950s and to the settlement made by the Government of that time, which Churchill described as Munich on the Nile. The horrors of a long civil war have led to the division of the country once and its incapacity to avoid further divisions as we go forward. Therefore, I want to suggest to the Minister that we need to invest longer term in broader reconciliation resources, specifically designed with partners to find peaceful solutions.
In other words, the strategic defence review should be full spectrum, preparing this nation not only to wage war but to wage peace as well. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it does not happen in the SDR, I hope very much that the Government, in particular the FCDO, will look very carefully at putting such mechanisms in place—not least, in our current times in this country, for reasons of economy. Stopping conflict before it happens via peaceful political solutions should be central to any root and branch redesign of security and defence.
Our influence in sub-Saharan Africa remains enormous. Our expertise is very considerable, both in civil society among the Churches, where, for example, the Anglican Communion has its largest percentage of members, and through government and the long experience we have of understanding issues there. The work of peacebuilding not only saves lives but saves vast amounts of taxpayers’ money for defence, for migration control and from humanitarian aid. It can be used expertly in contexts where our military would, rightly, never operate in force, yet where strategic foreign policy must work, such as in the context of securing critical minerals for the global transition to renewable energies from countries such as the DRC. Reducing the need for emergency funding, reducing destruction and reducing the dangers of vastly increased immigration are in our interests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made a very powerful point when she spoke of seeing Wagner in Khartoum. We are engaged in supporting Ukraine and, as a global power, we must look globally in the offshoots of that conflict, which we are seeking to diminish. The recent creation of the FCDO’s negotiations and peace process support team is an attempt at this, but it is, frankly, underfunded, understaffed and held within a limited FCDO remit. Thus, as my last comment, I suggest that we should see the creation of a joint reconciliation unit, staffed by intelligence, conflict analysts and military, civilian and trade specialists, complemented by experienced international negotiators and underpinned by relations with NGOs and faith groups, for most of these conflicts are in areas of high levels of belief. It should report to the National Security Council, because it is a matter of security. Crises happen, and they will go on, but we can do far better to be more effective and secure our own interests in the long term.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, one of the greatest privileges of sitting on these Benches is that, within a year or so of becoming a diocesan bishop, you are invited to spend a weekend at Sandringham. While there, often in January, you go for a barbeque—fortitude. You have the enormous gift given to you of being able to spend time with Her late Majesty, with her family, with the jigsaw puzzle and all the other things that are there. Thus, on behalf of these Benches—I know from the conversations we have among ourselves—there is a profound sense of personal sorrow and an even more profound sense of the significance of the virtues of the characteristics of the late Queen.
What has been said already today has been extraordinarily eloquent. I do not intend to repeat it but to say something about the Queen’s links to faith and to the Church of England. First is her assurance, her confidence, in the God who called her. At her coronation, so long ago, conducted by Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher—the first of seven Archbishops of Canterbury who had the privilege of serving her—the service began with her walking by herself past the Throne, where she would very shortly be seated, and kneeling by the high altar of Westminster Abbey. The order of service said, “She will kneel in private prayer”—and so she did, for some time. The next thing to happen was that homage was paid to her, starting with the Duke of Edinburgh. What that said about her understanding of her role was that she pledged her allegiance to God before others pledged their allegiance to her. She had this profound sense of who she was and by whom she was called.
Then there was her profound, deep and extraordinary theological vision. Many years ago now—seven or eight years ago—I was travelling abroad, and someone who had no knowledge of these things said, “Well, of course, she’s not really got that much intellect, has she? I mean, private tutors and all this—what can she know?” Well, what ignorance. In 2012, she spoke at Lambeth Palace on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, and the speech she made there is one we return to very frequently, because she set out a vision for what an established Church should be. It was not a vision of comfort and privilege; it was to say, put very politely, “You are here as an umbrella for the whole people of this land”. The subtext was, “If you are not that, you are nothing”. That is a deep vision of what it is to be the Church—of what it is to be not an established Church but a Christian Church. That came from her deep understanding of faith. Every five years, at the inauguration of the Church of England’s General Synod, she came with messages of encouragement and assurance of her prayers. In 2021, her message was,
“my hope is that you will be strengthened with the certainty of the love of God, as you work together and draw on the Church’s tradition of unity in fellowship for the tasks ahead.”
Publicly, Her late Majesty worshipped regularly and spoke of her faith in God, particularly in her Christmas broadcasts, with quiet, gentle confidence. Privately, she was an inspiring and helpful guide and questioner to me and to my predecessors. She had a dry sense of humour, as we have heard already, and the ability to spot the absurd—the Church of England was very capable of giving her material—but she never exercised that at the expense of others. When I last saw her in June, her memory was as sharp as it could ever have been. She remembered meetings from 40 or 50 years ago and drew on the lessons from those times to speak of today and what we needed to learn: assurance of the love of God in her call, and then humility. It would be easy as a monarch to be proud, but she was everything but that. It was her faith that gave her strength. She knew that, but she knew also her call to be a servant, the one whom she served, and the nation she served, the Commonwealth and the world. Over the last 24 hours, I have had so many messages from archbishops, bishops and other people around the world, within the Commonwealth and way beyond it—from China, Latin America and many other places—in a deep sense of loss.
It has been the privilege of those on these Benches to be intimately involved with momentous occasions so often throughout Her late Majesty’s life. As has been said, she has been a presence for as long as we can remember. Jesus says in the Gospel of St Matthew:
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”.
May God comfort all those who grieve Her late Majesty’s loss, and may God sustain His Majesty King Charles III in the enormous weight and challenges that he takes on immediately, at the same as he bears the burden of grief, and those around him in his family. May God hold Her late Majesty in His presence, firmly secured in the peace that passes far beyond our understanding.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we adjourn until 1.15 pm so that noble Lords who have to do things and be various places can find the time to do so.
Ukraine
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I have said that we are working closely with our allies to co-ordinate sanctions to maximise their deterrent impact and to limit as far as possible any negative impact on the UK or our partners. I am grateful that the noble Lord recognises the number of opportunities that the House has had to discuss these important matters over the past few weeks—there was a Question earlier today in which noble Lords had an opportunity to be involved—and there are opportunities for Back-Benchers to raise and debate issues.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords—the most reverend Primate beats me; he is senior to me.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Scarcely. I have never commanded a ship.
First, I associate myself with, particularly, the wise comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Having listened to the questions, does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that mediation and diplomacy should be pursued until the last moment, seeking to find ways to give both sides the opportunity to withdraw—particularly the Russians from their completely unjustified threats? The one thing we can be sure of is that, once war starts, all control of the situation will be completely lost, possibly for years, and the casualties will be terrible. Secondly, what provision are the Government making, should the worst come to the worst, to support the very large number of refugees and the huge needs for humanitarian support that will inevitably be part of fighting in the late winter in eastern Europe?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the most reverend Primate. He is absolutely right: diplomacy is the only way out of the current situation, but Russia must uphold the international commitments it has freely entered into and respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. I reassure noble Lords that we remain open to efforts by Russia to reduce tensions and encourage her to engage with transparency and de-escalation mechanisms, such as the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council, as I mentioned. Further such council meetings have been offered to discuss a whole range of issues, and that is the way forward: to de-escalate and engage in meaningful discussions. The US Administration has also confirmed President Biden’s willingness to have another meeting with President Putin, continuing the bilateral dialogue they began last week, so a lot of effort is ongoing on that side of things as well. We are providing £40 million in official development assistance and other funding to Ukraine in the coming year.
Afghanistan
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury [V]
My Lords, I look forward especially to hearing noble and gallant Lords, diplomats and others with local knowledge of Afghanistan. We rightly remember the courage, suffering and sacrifice over the past 20 years and the courage being shown currently by our ambassador and service- people in Afghanistan, together with their colleagues, and reporters.
When we look back, I remember a cathedral full for the funeral of a soldier: family and many colleagues silent in dignity, some wounded, mourning their loss. The failure we face today is not military or diplomatic—they did all they could—it is political. Recovery and hope will come to Afghanistan with our supporting commitment to the neediest and most desperate. We have proven capacities in soft as well as hard power. We owe an absolute, lavishly generous moral covenant to all those who are at risk because they served with us in Afghanistan or took seriously our frequently professed commitment to its future, women and girls included.
An Afghan refugee, now a UK citizen, said to me this week, “Families, in such times of trouble, belong together.” His words are not politics but humanity. This is about morals, not numbers. Will the Government confirm that their policy will reflect moral obligation and not be controlled by numbers?
In Pakistan, a country facing huge pressure, including from refugees, we must undertake dialogue and support, learning afresh the religious and cultural literacy which is essential to effective work. We must not put any groups there or in Afghanistan into a corner where they may be driven to greater extremism. The aid we offer must support dialogue, inspire hope and prepare reconciliation, and must be genuinely additional, not a transfer from other places of need. I ask the Government: will that be the case?
We must renew commitment to freedom of religion and belief everywhere, a point not much mentioned so far. That will count in Pakistan and Afghanistan for Christians and religious communities such as Shia, Hindus, Jains, Ahmadis and Sikhs. A WhatsApp from a Christian in Afghanistan yesterday asked for support there and in Pakistan. Memorably, he said, “I am willing to die for Jesus, but I do not want to die forgotten.”
This is a very bad time, especially for so many in Afghanistan and for those who serve there. It is a time for prayerful humility and for us to display generosity, virtue and courage. Rebuilding our reputation in such ways will give many others hope as well.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow four such eloquent speeches from the Front Benches, and it is with great sadness and much sympathy that I convey from these Benches the condolences of the Lords spiritual especially to Her Majesty the Queen, but also to all her family on the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. In thousands of churches and homes around the nation and the world yesterday, as on every Sunday, prayers were said for the Queen. This weekend we have also thanked God for Prince Philip’s life of extraordinary service. There are some rare people who bring energy into a room. As we have already heard, the Duke of Edinburgh was very much one of those people. His presence lifted a gathering. He might have challenged and interrogated, but whatever he said he never bored anyone.
As was mentioned on Radio 4 this morning, one of the rites of passage for diocesan bishops newly in post has been to preach at Sandringham in January. One arrives on the Saturday evening. There is often a barbecue—yes, I do mean in north Norfolk in January—at which the Duke of Edinburgh cooks superbly. I still remember the food. On the Sunday morning the bishop preaches. Let me be very honest: I often cannot remember my own sermons. Prince Philip listened intently, thought deeply and, over lunch, interrogated knowingly. His reading theologically was wide, his memory retentive, his analysis perceptive. Few bishops failed to leave with greater thoughtfulness and few failed to admire. We quite often had to answer questions about what a bishop had said in a sermon two or three weeks earlier with which he disagreed. He was effectively polling the Bench.
The Duke of Edinburgh had a profound moral imagination, extraordinary foresight and even vision. He saw the world not just as it is but as it could and should be, as worked out in his commitment to young people, especially through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, to the Commonwealth, to our Armed Forces, and to engineering, technology and design, where he played a formative and important part, as well as to conservation and the environment. In Edmund Burke’s words, he had an instinctive sense that the social contract was found in the traditions we inherit from the past, in our obligations to the present and in our responsibility to those yet to be born.
His genuine and deep sense of humility and his service came from the same place, which was his faith. That was also discussed this morning. He had a sincere Christian faith absolutely untainted by false piety, of which he was very intolerant, whoever showed it—quite rightly. It was formed and developed by wrestling with great issues, and refined by meeting such an extraordinary variety of people around the Commonwealth and the world and learning about their lives. He understood deeply how important faith is for the vast majority of the world’s population. He engaged the rich diversity of faiths within the UK and the Commonwealth. He was a pioneer in recognising the crucial role that faith leaders play in advocating for creation care. He was literally half a century ahead of his time in this area. His commitment to the present and future good of this nation and of the Commonwealth was reflected in technology and engineering as an expression, for him, of our God-given intelligence and responsibility.
His service was a profound expression of his faith. He knew who he was, and his faith was central to who he was and how he lived his life. He worked out his call to serve and follow Christ in the context of his calling, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, rightly said, was unique. His life, his work and especially his family and his service to Her Majesty, as her senior and premier subject and as her husband, formed his vocation—yet he was always utterly true and authentic to himself. That mixture is a lesson for all, especially perhaps on these Benches.
Much has been said in the last few days about an exceptional man of great service, duty and wit. It is of course Her Majesty and the Royal Family who will remember him most dearly, and for them, our prayer is that even as they walk in the valley of the shadow of death, they know that the good shepherd is with them and upholding them.
Priorities for the Government
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
No, we are committed to continuing to improve our economic situation to support businesses. For instance, we want to liberate our bioscience sector, we are committed to ensuring growth around the country and we remain committed to our strategy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I welcome the repetition of the Statement. We on these Benches wish to express our thanks to the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and to Mr Evans. We tend to turn over numbers rather more regularly than your Lordships and have always been very well welcomed. We are deeply grateful and will miss them both very much indeed. I say that on behalf of all Members of these Benches—including the ones in disguise.
To move away from Brexit for a moment, the Statement talks powerfully about ambitions for education, tackling crime, social care and health, and about increasing funding for them very significantly. All that will of course be most welcome—if it comes. The issue, though, is that money does not do it all. In all those areas, the impact of households and families in their many diverse forms today is crucial. Social care is best handled—most effectively and affectionately—from within the home. Education within the home is absolutely critical. The challenges of crime, particularly in relation to probation and the release of prisoners, are best met within a stable home and household environment.
There are many different types of households and homes but, as we heard in Oral Questions this morning, significant obstacles remain to families and households supporting and caring for people in the most effective and flexible way and with the least cost to government. Will the Government be looking at these invisible barriers that affect the areas on which they wish to deliver with so much money and so much passion?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the most reverend Primate for his comments. He is right that there are things that the Government can visibly do, but there is also support and there are things on the ground that we need to help develop, and that will certainly be part of our plans. The new Prime Minister has set out his vision covering domestic policy. I am delighted that I was not asked a question on Brexit because we want to look at how we can improve quality of life for people across our country and to focus on our future. That is why he is particularly focused on, and has highlighted, the fact that he wants to protect older people from the fear of having to sell their home to pay for care. I hope noble Lords will be pleased to hear that we will be publishing proposals in this area soon, because it is one of those areas that will make a significant difference to families across the country and to people’s lives, and it is something that we really must grapple with.
Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, of the choice of psalms that form part of our daily prayers in the Lords, we have Psalm 46, which we heard today,
“The nations rage, the kingdoms totter”,
and Psalm 121, which we will doubtless hear tomorrow,
“I lift up my eyes to the hills …
My help comes from the Lord,
who made heaven and earth”.
Eyes need to be lifted now more than ever, and that is a gift of this House, perhaps more than others. It is a skill and a calling here.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration are essentially political more than economic; the debate has moved on from the referendum campaign, which was the other way round. Another change, as we know particularly since yesterday evening, is that the great decisions are now left firmly in the hands of Parliament—as is right.
The decision on this agreement and consequent legislation is thus about not just the immediate politics but national policy and identity, and our future place in the world and how we develop it. It is long term: it is for the child born yesterday and not just for parliamentarians today. The decision must be made in the interests of those who will be here for the long term. In the midst of political struggle, that is a very hard thing to do, but it is the calling of Parliament and one to which it has risen in equal crises in the past.
In what way will we be able to be the kind of nation we want to be? First, it is obvious that no agreement is ever final. Many years ago, Palmerston said:
“We have no eternal allies”,—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/1848; col. 122.]
only eternal interests. So no agreement is final, least of all the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, both of which I have read in their entirety. They make it clear that so much is left open in deciding our future and our relationships with the EU 27 and around the world. That may be an advantage or a disadvantage.
What is obvious is that we are choosing a new path. Although I am a remainer, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I fully accept the decision of the referendum, which must now be implemented; the shape of which is in the hands of Parliament, and particularly of the other place. With that responsibility there is a moral agency and a moral choice, and it is that that should guide our votes. It must reflect a genuinely hopeful vision for our nation and its place, because there is a vision of hope and global influence to be grasped by this country, with proper leadership.
Secondly, whichever way we go, there is a requirement for national reconciliation; for restating what the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, calls the core values of civilised discourse, and ensuring that they are lived out. The negative impact of the previous referendum is why I see another one as a possible but not immediately preferable choice, and only if Parliament has failed in its responsibilities. Reconciliation is an area for civil society and faith groups, but it is also largely the responsibility of any Government. It is a process that takes generations, and thus will affect not only the current Government but subsequent ones. What specific commitment will the Leader of the House—and for that matter the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other leaders of groups and parties—make to future Governments to work purposefully for reconciliation in this House, across politics and across the nation? We have heard much about its need but nothing about its methods.
Thirdly, economically, we know that there are many and diverse views about the outcome of this agreement, of no agreement or of other possibilities. We know that no forecast is certain—that has become very clear over the last two and a half years. The risk we face now is not a decision to leave without an agreement but an accidental leaving without an agreement. We may drift into something that no one chooses as their ideal. If that happens, and even under some of the other options, there is a significant danger of adverse economic effect, with a fall in government revenue, a rise in unemployment and greater poverty. Some will argue that that will be only temporary, but we need to remember that for those in poverty, temporary is an eternity. It must be the clear policy of this and all future Governments, after so many years of austerity, borne most often by the poorest, that the burden of the transition to a post-EU economy—if there is a burden—must be carried by those with the broadest shoulders, the wealthiest, and not by further cuts, whether to local services, social care, benefits, the Armed Forces, climate change budgets, education or other areas that have lost so much in recent years.
This is not a simply a debate—and, in the other place, a decision—on the agreement and the declaration before us. This is genuinely a moment of national re-imagination; exciting and hope-filled, but also deeply dangerous in some ways. We have had such before; we need not despair.
Another verse from the Bible, from Proverbs in the King James version, says:
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”.
The withdrawal agreement and political declaration are mainly about process, not vision and outcome. Whichever way we go, there must be a vision for justice and fairness, with economic, political, and visionary moral foundations secure enough to bear any storms or shocks that may come. The process must then lay the foundations to fulfil such a vision. That should be the test for our voting.
Grenfell Tower
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the Prime Minister said in her Statement, we believe that it is right that the chief executive resigned because we have acknowledged all along that there has not been good enough support for the families. As I have also said, the judge-led inquiry will allow us to look at the broader circumstances leading up to and surrounding the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower so that all lessons can be learned by everyone involved.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the eventual comprehensive response, and I particularly welcome the speech given by the noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, which was especially powerful and helpful. Having been with voluntary groups at the Grenfell Tower during the day following the fire, I have two questions. First, one of the fire officers we were talking to said, “This is the third once-in-a-generation event in a few weeks”. The number of emergency service people, who for the third time in a very few weeks put their lives on the line and found themselves in a situation of the most absolute horror, seeking to save the victims who were caught in the fire as well as in the previous terrorist incidents, is much higher than would normally be expected. Can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be no budgetary constraints on the emergency services in providing support for those who have been involved in taking these huge risks and that those services will be adequately funded above and beyond their normal provision in supporting those who may need extra support after such a traumatic period? Secondly, one of the other notable things is that around the site of the fire on the following day the faith communities—there is reference in the Statement to volunteers—were working together in a way that completely gave the lie to the divisions that the terrorist attacks had sought to create. This was the most powerful visual image of unity, and of unity around the suffering. Would she agree that those communities also merit mention and commendation?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to agree with the comments of the most reverend Primate. We also saw a similar coming together of community after the Finsbury Park mosque incident, so I am very happy to endorse everything he said. With regard to the emergency services, again, I think we have all agreed about the emergency services and the bravery of the fire services—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke very well about that. We saw in their response that they were able to act very quickly and to do everything within their power to save as many people as possible. Of course, we commend all the incredible work that they do.
London Attacks
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has reminded us, many of us were taken to the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey or to Westminster Hall as events unfolded yesterday afternoon. The Dean of Westminster invited those in the Abbey to join him in a prayer for the deceased, the injured and their families. Such information as we had at that stage gave us little idea of the enormity of what had happened—of the horror and brutality of the attack—until we saw the reality later on television. We on these Benches join with everyone else in this House in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family of PC Keith Palmer, so tragically taken from us as he sought to deter the attacker.
We remember, too, the families and friends of the members of the public who were killed and all those who were injured, including the students from France whose visit to our city was so devastated by what happened. The fact that the incident did not develop into something very much worse owes much to the teams of security personnel and police officers who guard us every day. Like others, I pay tribute to their courage and dedication as we seek to follow their example of standing firm against attacks of this kind, from wherever they may come. I pay tribute, too, to others in the security services up and down the country who work so hard in the service of this country’s peace and security. For that, amid so much sadness, we must all be grateful.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I associate myself with the thanks and tributes paid today, and especially our prayers and thoughts for PC Keith Palmer and for his family. I also acknowledge the work of so many members of the public who pitched in and did what they needed to do when faced with things for which they had never been trained or prepared. Yesterday afternoon one of our own security staff at Lambeth Palace, a Muslim, arrived at the gate having been very narrowly missed by the vehicle and having spent time helping those who had been injured. It was typical of this community and this country that he refused to go home until the end of his shift and simply spent the time doing his job as he expected.
This was typical of so many in this city, including the emergency services who contained the incident within six minutes and the staff at this extraordinary place who give so much of themselves on both normal occasions and extraordinary occasions. Especially in our hearts today are those who wait at bedsides, who are suddenly caught up in things for which they could never have been prepared and which they never expected. Our prayers continue for them on this day. Much shock has been expressed, but we know from the reactions we saw yesterday that we have the strength to persevere through it. We will talk more generally about that later.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, perhaps I may add my condolences to those already expressed today to those affected by these tragic events. A book of condolence has been placed in the Royal Gallery and in Westminster Hall. The usual channels have agreed to take the Statement on yesterday’s events before Questions. Before that Statement I reassure the House that the House of Lords Commission, which I chair, and our Commons counterpart will be reviewing with the police and other stakeholders the arrangements in Parliament relating to yesterday’s incident to see whether there are any lessons for the future. Above all, I reiterate the thanks of this House to those who work to protect us, and the others who work in Parliament, for their brave actions yesterday to keep us safe.
London Attacks
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is not the usual custom for the Convener of the Cross Benches to respond to a Statement of this kind, but this is a very special occasion. I pay my own thanks to the Leader for repeating the Statement in the other place by the Prime Minister.
There are lessons to be learned from yesterday, and they certainly will be. One of the things that struck me as the evening wore on was the challenge faced by the security forces, police and staff—indeed, the doorkeepers in this Chamber—in moving so many people about without risk to themselves. It was an enormous undertaking. I do not have the exact figures but something like 800 people were in Westminster Hall, while it was said that 2,500 people were present in Westminster Abbey. You have to imagine the process of moving people from place to place. They included children who were kept in Westminster Hall, who kept themselves and many other people happy by singing songs, which was a remarkable achievement by their teachers. That is just one of the examples of the good-natured way in which people responded to the demands of the evening.
I pay my own tribute to the doorkeepers, because we depend upon them. It was stressed in a recent rehearsal for something similar to this incident that we would be subject to the direction of the doorkeepers and, with their usual tact and firmness, they made sure that we were in the right place at the right time and guided to the places where we ought to be taken.
As I said at the end of my short statement, there are things to be thankful for, and there are certainly things we can learn from. Thank goodness the incident was not worse than it was. Just imagine the real horror if the person had broken into the Chambers with his knife. It is for that, the fact that the incident was stopped so early, that we owe so much to PC Palmer and his colleagues.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I add a welcome from these Benches to the Statement by the Prime Minister, which, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, rightly set the tone and spoke for this country. I also convey to the House the messages of sympathy and support that I have received through the night from faith leaders around the world and across this country who want this House and Parliament, particularly its staff and those who have suffered, to know how much those people are in their hearts and minds.
With regard to values, I want to refer to something that seems to me to go deeper, to something that is at the foundation of our own understanding of what our society is about, and I want to do so in three simple, brief pictures. The first is of a vehicle being driven across Westminster Bridge by someone who had a perverted, nihilistic and despairing view of objectives, and of what society and indeed life are about, that could be fulfilled only by death and destruction. The second is of that same person a few minutes later, on a stretcher or on the ground being treated by the very people whom he had sought to kill. The third is of these two Houses, where profound, bitter, angry disagreement is dealt with not with violence, despair or cruelty but with discussion, reason and calmness.
Those three pictures point us to deep values within our society—deeper even than those that have rightly been mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement and other statements. You would expect to hear this from these Benches, but it is the sense that comes from a narrative that has been within our society for almost 2,000 years. It speaks at this time of year, as we look forward to Holy Week and Easter, of a God who stands with the suffering and brings justice, and whose resurrection has given to believer and unbeliever the sense that where we do what is right—where we behave properly, where that generosity and extraordinary sense of duty that leads people to treat a terrorist is shown, where the bravery of someone such as PC Keith Palmer is demonstrated—there is a victory for what is right and good over what is evil, despairing and bad. That was shown yesterday; that is shown not just in our expression of values but in our practices, which define those values; and that is the mood that we must show in future.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, the noble and learned Lord and the most reverend Primate for their comments. I also thank the noble Baroness and the Opposition Chief Whip for their help and support yesterday. It showed that we can all work as a team in times of great distress and difficulty.
I am sure that the noble Baroness’s suggestion of a permanent memorial to PC Palmer will be something that the Houses reflect on in due course as we come together to think about our reaction to these tragic events. I also confirm that we will of course keep Parliament updated of developments as and when we are able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, rightly raised the experiences of Members of this House, the public and the other place yesterday. I reiterate the words of the Lord Speaker: we will be assessing with the police and other partners what happens and how we can improve things, but I echo all of our thanks to the police, the doorkeepers and all members of staff, who had as traumatic a day as we did yesterday but helped us throughout and put us first, as ever.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we will continue to work closely with our international partners to combat terrorism. The warm and strong words we have already heard from our partners around the globe show the strength of the relationships we have and will continue to have.
Finally, I thank the most reverend Primate for his powerful words. There is nothing I can add to them, so I will leave the last word to him.