Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Sentamu

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. When she was talking of her role as a receiver of distinguished foreign visitors, I immediately thought of one of the most unforgettable Members of your Lordships’ House who often did a similar job and told hilarious stories about the encounters that she had. That was, of course, Baroness Trumpington, of whom we all have such affectionate memories.

It has been an extraordinary period since Thursday lunchtime, when that difficult news came through. We all knew from the first moment that we had to expect the worst. I must say that I felt a great privilege in being a Member of your Lordships’ House yesterday. There were some very moving and splendid speeches, as there have been today. I have never, in my nearly 12 years in your Lordships’ House, nor in my 52 years in Parliament, heard better Front-Bench speeches than I heard yesterday in this House. However, the most moving moment for me was when we assembled informally in your Lordships’ Chamber to listen to the first words of our new King, who spoke with a quiet, moving dignity, suffused with deep affection for a wonderful mother.

Not being privileged to be a member of the Privy Council, I had to watch this morning’s Proclamation on television, as did most of us. The King spoke again and he used a few words that I want to dwell on for a moment:

“Even as we grieve, we give thanks.”


That is very important indeed. We are mourning the departure of a Christian monarch who believed in the afterlife. We are mourning the departure of one of the most remarkable women who ever lived, but who died in really wonderful circumstances, in the place that she loved, surrounded by people whom she loved, having just accomplished constitutional duties with panache and good humour, in instituting her last Prime Minister.

We have a lot to be thankful for. Having such a respectable bevvy of Bishops on the Benches, I appeal to them. Of course, what happens in 10 days’ time will be a great state funeral, but can it not also be designated on the service sheet as a service of thanksgiving, since that is what we will be doing? We will be not just mourning but giving thanks for someone who has done her duty better than anyone I can think of.

We have been talking of personal memories. I cannot pretend that I knew Her Majesty, but I had the very great good fortune to meet her on a number of occasions. Two stick in my memory. The first was in 2002. I was the treasurer of the CPA, the senior Opposition position in the CPA. We decided that we would have a conference of Commonwealth parliamentarians. We had an immediate affirmative answer from the Palace that Her Majesty and Prince Philip would be delighted to come, and they came. We met in Lancaster House.

I had two duties. One was to take round Prince Philip while the chairman took round the Queen. Then we all four gathered. I had the job of making a presentation to Her Majesty of a wonderful paper knife, crafted by perhaps our finest female silversmith. The knife had the mace at the end of it. She wielded it and said, “By Jove, that’s got a very good feeling.” Before the end of the day, I had a letter from her office saying that she was already using it and much enjoying it.

We were talking to her about the Commonwealth. As has been mentioned many times—particularly movingly today by the noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord Boateng—in a sense she lived for the Commonwealth. From going round with the two of them and talking to Commonwealth parliamentarians, I saw that there was not a country that they had not been to. They knew the intimate history of many of the people who were there and they both manifested a love for this greatest of international organisations.

My other memory is a very personal one. On 20 April 2010, I was at a farewell party at Windsor Castle for the Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures. The Queen was there, mingling with us. Of course, the next day she was due to be 84. I said what I thought were some appropriate words and also said, “My grandson is six tomorrow and is very thrilled that he shares your birthday.” “Please give him my warmest wishes”, she said. Edward thought this was an extraordinary leg-pull when I rang him up and told him, but it was just typical of her ability to relate not only to significant Commonwealth parliamentarians but to a little boy whom she certainly never met. She cared about her family, as has been said so often.

How do we best thank her and how do we best encourage our new King? We do it, as was touched on last night in a very interesting and powerful speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, by trying to demonstrate the sort of unity for which she always stood. We have a particular responsibility in your Lordships’ House, where party politics is not as acerbic as it is in the other place. She was a person who brought others together. It is clearly the manifest desire of our new King to do the same. We must play our part in doing that.

I end on a note that I never thought I would end on this year, in emphatic agreement with Boris Johnson. He said, in some very remarkable words the other day, that he thought she should go down in history as Elizabeth the Great. I endorse that and I hope that, in due course, that will come to pass. God save the King.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was three years old when, in a little village in Uganda called Masooli, we all gathered round a very small transistor radio and listened to the broadcast from the abbey of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth. From then on in every school in Uganda on Empire Day we sang “God save the Queen”. We continue to do it; some still do it now. I stand here as somebody who is quite surprised that this little boy out in Uganda would today be part of the Accession Council and the confirmation of King Charles III. I have mixed emotions.

I want first to echo the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, because on Thursday, as soon as we heard the news that Her Majesty had died, I put on Twitter this message:

“Today Churches Celebrate the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on this day is a great shock & Mary’s Magnificat should be our response: MY SOUL DOTH MAGNIFY THE LORD: & MY SPIRIT HATH REJOICED IN GOD MY SAVIOUR; REGARDED & MAGNIFIED HER”.


I have stood, on a number of occasions, near Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as she sang the Magnificat. She did not need the words; she knew them. In a real sense, that was her song too. She sang it from the heart because it expressed who she was. Her true greatness was her deep humility in knowing that the Lord in many ways “regarded” her “lowliness” and, by divine providence, made her Queen. For her, being Queen was an act of nobody but God.

Humbleness was, for her, born out of having Jesus Christ at the centre of her living, her thinking and all her goals, her rejoicing and even in moments of sadness. She knew the holy scriptures well and sang many hymns without needing to look at the words. She really imbibed the whole tradition. Therefore, it was also comforting to hear our new King say the same thing about the services that shaped him.

When in her presence, you were the person who mattered when you spoke to her. She never looked around. It was as if you were the only person in the room, and until that conversation ended her eyes were fixed on you and your smile.

Forgive this testimony. I had an audience with her to ask for her permission to step down from my role after an extra year. Her response was, “The decision is yours and yours alone—not me, not anyone else. Give me the date and so it shall be.” I took that to be a command. There was a matter that was causing me great heartache. I told her, and I asked for her prayers. I knelt down and put my hands together. She put hers outside mine. There was this deep moment of silence. I think it lasted about two to three minutes. It was ended by Her Majesty saying, “Amen.” I got up and, friends, whatever burdens I had come with were lifted. It was as if I was with my grandmother, who had a similar effect on me. If you want to know more, you have to wait until my autobiography is published next year. You will get a bit more story because permission has been given to me to write some of those words down.

Her hospitality was amazing. I stayed at Sandringham and at Windsor. I will tell your Lordships a bit about Windsor. At Windsor on her birthday, after dinner she and Prince Philip guided us to the library. They had already arranged with the archivist the section on Uganda. The books were opened and copies were made so that we could take some of this material with us. The thing that most surprised me was to see writing dictated by King Muteesa I requesting Queen Victoria to send missionaries to Uganda, and subsequently a request that Uganda became a protectorate. Those documents are there. I was speechless, really. We ended up in the restored chapel at Windsor. Again, there were silent prayers. I cannot remember how long.

The death of Queen Elizabeth has left all of us with mixed emotions. I want to end with the experience of our eight year-old granddaughter, Abigail. When she saw the news that the Queen had died she cried, uncontrollably and inconsolably. When she calmed down, she said, “I will never see a queen in my lifetime”. She then said, “Long live the King”. Queen Elizabeth rests in glory. Long live King Charles III.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Sentamu

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly and for the first time in this debate, provoked into doing so by what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. It is fundamentally wrong to legislate in a way that obliges you to break international law. It is very simple, but that is it. We do not have islands around our shores where we can gather together vast groups of potential refugees and asylum seekers.

The other day I was reading a review of a book, which has just come out, about the Isle of Man in the Second World War. There was of course great panic about people of German origin—although most of the poor people were of Jewish origin as well—domiciled in this country. They were rounded up and taken there. There are some fairly inspiring stories but also some very depressing stories. We have to tread exceptionally carefully here. We have gone on a lot about global Britain, but if I am to be proud of global Britain, I want to be proud of a country that is upholding the highest international standards.

Although I take on board what my noble friend Lord Horam said a few moments ago—he made a gently forceful speech that deserves consideration—I just cannot for the life of me think that to herd people into encampments in Rwanda and other far distant places is anything other than a repudiation of our standards as a great country. It would be fundamentally wrong for us to go along this line. Treat thy neighbour as thyself. There is a lot of wisdom in the 10 commandments. A bishop should really be saying this rather than me, but I really believe that it is essential that whatever we do is consistent with our record as the great nation that abolished slavery throughout its dominions and before that abolished the slave trade. There were battles in Parliament for both, but my parliamentary hero is William Wilberforce and I do not want to see his reputation traduced.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I have been sitting on my hands because whenever you tell a personal story, it looks as though you are not pleading what the noble Lord talked about—law. We arrived in 1974 and were treated with such great respect, love and care. For about 20 years we travelled on a British travel document. That kind of hospitality was of great help to us all.

The way I read this clause is almost as a revisitation of Guantanamo Bay—a very bad piece of work—or voluntary rendition, whereby people were taken from one country to another to sort out whether they were terrorists or not. This country should not use offshoring. The word “offshore” already does not have a good reputation in terms of money and offshore investment. This is a country that has been the mother of parliaments and the mother of legislation and where the rule of law is what governs all of us. How can we get a third country to take what we call refugees?

I can assure noble Lords that there will be many countries in Africa that will volunteer to do it. The question we have to ask is: how do those seemingly wonderful countries treat their nationals? Do they treat them in the same way that this country does? I would be very doubtful. For the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of this great Parliament and for the sake of the British people who have been very good in welcoming the likes of me, this clause should—please—not become part of the legislation.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Sentamu

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Well, I certainly was going to make my remarks brief, and I am sorry that I was detained for one minute. I just want to give my wholehearted support to these amendments. There is no more despicable trade than the trade in human organs and no more despicable practices than those that are going on in China at the moment, simultaneously with the opening of the shameful Games. I very much hope that my noble friend, who so politely interrupted me, will be able to give us a very supportive statement when he comes to wind up this debate.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I also stand to support Amendments 265 and 282. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay.

I declare an interest as, quite a number of years ago now, I was one of those who signed up to say that, at the moment of death, all my organs will be left to the National Health Service for any scientific work that may be required. I carry a card, but it says that my organs should be kept in this country and not exported anywhere else, because I have no trust that they would not be used for purposes for which they were not intended.

When I was doing philosophy in Cambridge, Professor Williams posed a question. He said “Surprising things happen—that they are no longer surprising. Comment.” Noble Lords who have done philosophy will know how complicated that question is.

In Uganda, Idi Amin was known for the people that he feared most. He would cut off their heads, put them in the fridge, and put their organs in another fridge. People did not believe this, and he was overthrown. His treating of the human body like something you simply dispose of was horrific. No wonder a lot of people died under that terrible Government of his when he was in power. What we are being asked is: should the standards in this country also be somehow given over to other countries so that they can learn? But we too have got to be very careful that our standards are as high as the tissue Act says.

We live in a world that is so perilous at times, and where some people may disappear and you never see them. In Uganda, quite a number of leading people disappeared and, up to today, we do not know where they went. The thing is, they would be put in drums of acid and their bodies would be dissolved. Surprising things happen—that they are no longer surprising. May we be so vigilant. These two amendments do the job, so I hope that the Minister when he responds will have heard the urgency in the speeches, but, most of all, in the amendments themselves.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Sentamu

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

I am just about to finish.

The House of Lords should be able to say, “We do not think you’ve got this right”. Of course, if the other place takes a different line we recognise the limitations on our power. But let us send a message to the other place tonight.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I hope you will permit me to think aloud; these are not yet crystallised thoughts. I heard the exchanges between the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Hannay and Lord Forsyth, and I still want to work out some of the complications. For me, Amendment 3 provides for the intrusion of Parliament into the negotiation processes—which I do not think should happen—in such a way that it could prevent any deal ever being reached, because we would be involving ourselves in the processes.

There is a question that has not been fully answered. The amendment mentions the approval of Parliament three times. It says,

“without the approval of both Houses of Parliament”,

once, and:

“The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required”,


twice. The question that has to be answered is: what happens when this House does not agree with the other House? The amendment says that both must agree, but if we did not agree with the other place, that would give the unelected House almost a veto on the procedure for reaching an agreement with the EU, which in turn would thwart the decision made by the electorate in the 2016 referendum. So that question has to be answered.

I think that the commitment made by the Prime Minister in January 2017 as to the role of Parliament goes above and beyond what is in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I invite your Lordships to look at that Act, because I think she said more than it allows. I suggest that it is not in Parliament’s gift to make this a condition, as the European Union might well refuse to negotiate, or it might agree not to extend the negotiations. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said yesterday that,

“we should not commit to any process that would incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal”,

and that any deal that could be rejected by MPs would,

“give strength to other parties in the negotiation. We believe it should be a simple bill in relation to triggering article 50 and nothing else.”

For me, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was trying to say the same thing, triggering Article 50 is an irreversible act. Two years after triggering Article 50 the UK will leave the EU. It will do so with or without a deal, but either way it will leave. Article 50, paragraph (3) makes it clear that the treaties will cease to apply two years after notification has been made. It is possible that the 27 EU members might unanimously agree to extend the negotiating period beyond the two years, but this cannot be taken for granted, nor should it be assumed that anything but a brief extension would be offered. This amendment shows no awareness as to the realities presented by the Article 50 timeframe. It may sound like rubbish, but an answer has to be given to the questions raised by paragraph (3). The amendment also overlooks the fact that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is about the triggering of Article 50 and the formal divorce settlement. Neither the Bill nor Article 50 is about negotiating a new agreement with the EU.

Faith seeking understanding: fides quaerens intellectum. Could somebody explain? If I cannot get a clear answer to the questions I have posed, I may find myself voting no. But if I am helped to understand then I may vote yes.