Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Glenarthur Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords across this House in offering my sincere condolences to the King, Queen Consort and all the Royal Family. When I was walking back yesterday evening, I noticed that all the bus stops had a photograph of the Queen where the advertisements normally are. As I walked past one, I heard a woman behind me say, “We could all learn a lot from her”, and her friend replied, “Yes, she was a class act.” She certainly was, and that embodies the spirit of what everyone in this Chamber has been saying over the last couple of days.

I should like to pay tribute as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust by sharing with noble Lords the strong interest of the late Queen and the wider Royal Family in native rare breeds. We have heard that Her late Majesty was incredibly knowledgeable about horses and she was a very experienced breeder. Her extensive breeding programmes made hugely important contributions to the survival of a number of our rare and native breeds, including highland and Shetland ponies at the Balmoral estate, fell ponies at Hampton Court and Cleveland bays as part of the carriage breeding programme at Hampton Court.

A number of breed societies have benefited greatly from her patronage, including the Fell Pony Breeders Association, the Highland Pony Society, the Cleveland Bay Horse Society and the Shire Horse Society. Her late Majesty kept fell ponies as a girl and enjoyed riding her native breed ponies. Only four years ago, aged 92, she was photographed riding one. I am sure we can all recall the beautiful photograph of our late Queen holding the reins of her two favourite fell ponies to mark her 96th birthday earlier this year.

The Queen’s work and actions on behalf of rare and native breeds are far too many to mention, but I would like to pick out one particular highlight. She was absolutely instrumental in saving the Cleveland bay horse breed in the 1960s. When she bought one of the few remaining stallions, she sparked a renewal of interest in the breed, which desperately needed help. The breed went from strength to strength. At the royal farms, Her Majesty also kept a variety of native cattle breeds, including highlands at the Balmoral estate and Jersey and Sussex cattle at Windsor.

All this is part of our Royal Family’s wider interest in native animals. The Queen Mother kept Orpington hens, Princess Anne keeps Gloucestershire Old Spot pigs as well as her own Orpington hens, and the Rare Breed Survival Trust has long been honoured by the patronage and wonderful support of His Majesty King Charles III, under his former title of the Prince of Wales. I hope I may have encouraged some noble Lords to look at keeping some rare breeds.

Our late Queen’s very practical, dedicated and immensely valued contribution to the survival of our native breeds is another example of her life of service to our country. We will always be immeasurably grateful for this service, her generosity and the remarkable legacy in this area that she leaves for the generations to come. Rest in peace.

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, who spoke earlier, I live on what is often known as Royal Deeside. I know from a very brief journey home only yesterday that my deep sense of sadness at the death of the Queen is one shared by the entire Aberdeenshire community, rural and urban—a community of which the Royal Family is very much a part.

A deep loss is felt not only by those of us in the United Kingdom but, as other noble Lords have referred to, by others internationally. As an example, I will take one nation of the Commonwealth that the Queen was aware I knew well, and whose royal family I remain close to: Tonga. I know from personal messages the deep sense of sadness that its people feel. The late Queen was extremely fond of Tonga and its people; she kept in touch with the Royal Family and took a keen interest in the fortunes of that country.

On a personal note, as a former Army officer, I felt deeply proud that Her Majesty the Queen took the salute at my commissioning parade in 1963. I had the lucky honour to be an officer in the Queen’s Bodyguard for Scotland, the Royal Company of Archers, and to have participated in many royal duties in front of Her late Majesty, not least the unique Golden and Diamond Jubilee garden parties held at Balmoral. I thank God for a life lived to the full, for Her late Majesty’s deep and guiding faith, wisdom, sense of duty and steadfastness, and for the abiding inspiration that she has been to us all. May she rest in peace. God save the King.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in death, as she did throughout her long life, Her Majesty the Queen is present in every aspect of our daily lives: on buses that say, “Thank you, Ma’am”, at their destinations; on billboards emblazoned with her regal image; and on social media, which is flooded with people changing their picture to a sketch of the Queen with Paddington Bear. As so many noble Lords have said, we are shocked by how deeply we have been affected. It is difficult to explain how the loss of a person you may or may never have met can have such a profound effect, but perhaps it is because we lost not only the person but that part of our lives that we thought was constant and safe, no matter what.

As a vice-president of Liberal Judaism, I want to express our deep gratitude for an exceptional life that was unfailingly devoted to the service of her people and every community in her realm. In their grief and sorrow, we wish a long life to His Majesty King Charles III and all the Royal Family.

Every week, in synagogues across the UK and the Commonwealth, Jews pray for the welfare of the Royal Family and all those who influence the quality of our national life. We have prayed for our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth—who has never fallen short—for 70 years, and this week, for the first time, we prayed for our sovereign, King Charles. That is continuity, and that is change.

This week, a special prayer written by our president was recited at Liberal synagogues throughout the country. I would like to share some of these words with noble Lords today:

“During the 70 years of her reign, during which she saw many upheavals and changes, she served her people with enduring devotion and grace, uniting races, creeds and tongues with outstretched hand and cheerful countenance … In times of turmoil and distress, she sought comfort from her faith and led by example, speaking truth, abiding by her oath of majesty, accepting the discipline of her sovereignty and serving God with humility and intent. She worked with abiding and conscientious duty for the good of all her people, overcoming her own trials and tribulations to unite us as one humanity, whose purpose it is to do God’s will for the good of all people … May her reign remain an example to guide King Charles with integrity and truth, promoting freedom, justice and righteousness, so that all may be blessed with prosperity and peace. We pray for the health and well-being of the new King.”


May her memory be for a blessing. Long live the King.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Lord Glenarthur Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak only briefly, but very definitely in support of the Bill. In doing so, I suppose it is only honest of me to say that in past years I had some personal doubts about the whole issue of women priests and all that was likely to follow from that. My early concerns were based not on any antagonism to women in that role but on what seemed to me to be the historic teaching and doctrine of the Church of England, with which I had been imbued at school during my formative years. I had been happy to accept them, but things change and if the views of the church on these matters can develop and change so, obviously, can mine. I have got to know and admire a number of women priests, not only in the Anglican Church but also in the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church. So I readily acknowledge the successful role that women in the priesthood play. As a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee I warmly supported the subsequent legislation on women bishops as a natural extension of what had begun earlier.

I suppose that I am naturally cautious about amending historic process, in this case the Bishoprics Act 1878, effectively to introduce what some might describe as a form of positive discrimination, even if it contributes towards gender balance, without careful consideration. However, the significance of the agreement, so widely supported throughout the country, to sanction the appointment of women bishops does have an important bearing on the contributions from the Bishops’ Benches in this House. So it seems to me to be absolutely right that, so as to provide us with the opportunity to have contributions from a woman diocesan bishop rather sooner than might otherwise be the case, a time-limited change to the 1878 Act is justified. Apart from anything else, it would be odd not to accept that part of any bishop’s wider ministry comes from what can be powerfully expressed in your Lordships’ House when the opportunity arises, and we should not be denied longer than is necessary such contributions from a woman diocesan bishop when one is appointed.

I am also glad to know that those current diocesan bishops—of whom the Bishop of Lincoln, as we have heard, is the most immediately affected—who might be somewhat delayed, or further delayed, in receiving a Writ of Summons as a result of this Bill, are content with what is proposed. I certainly feel that that shows much Christian and practical magnanimity.

I support the Bill wholeheartedly and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Glenarthur Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendment 74C effectively rescues boys under 15 and girls. Noble Lords will not be surprised that, while I agree with that, I regret that the Motion is not about the shameful secure college proposal. I hope that proposal will never come to fruition. It is inappropriate, unproven, undeliverable and plain wrong.

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, I share many of the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, the fact that the there is to be a report and a draft statutory instrument does go a long way towards meeting many of the concerns over which I pressed my noble friend on the Front Bench at the last stage. I record my warm thanks to him for moving as far as he can, or the Government will allow, in this particular direction.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised that I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I shall make only a couple of points, because I think that he has set out the arguments clearly. I thank the Minister for listening to us with care. I wish that he could use his considerable advocacy skills to go back to those who are pressing this and to discuss whether the evidence that we have put forward points to alternative secure provision.

In my time, I have been responsible for accommodating the most difficult children, so I am not someone who denies the need for secure provision of some kind. At the moment we are in total conflict with the work being done by local government—I say this as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—where departments are working really hard with the Youth Justice Board to ensure that young people are accommodated as near to their families as possible. A young person from the south of England who goes to Leicestershire has little likelihood of being able to make any proper contact with his or her family, should that be the plan. I accept that some young people are better separated from their families, but they are the minority. Most young people do better if they have contact with their families, even when their families are difficult.

This geographical spread is going to make it difficult for local authorities to meet their targets in relation to the best care in the interests of these children. It will stand in the way of their officers providing continuity of care that will take these young people into employment and that will make sure that there is family therapy when needed. All these services are local. Having maybe three smaller units that accommodate young people would be of real benefit.

I know that this is difficult, but I would just ask the Minister to go back and suggest that we look at this issue again. It is not that we do not want to look at secure provision, but the proposal for a prison of this size for children is looked on with great disbelief by colleagues whom I talk to internationally. It would be a disgrace to childcare in this country were this to go forward.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Glenarthur Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, I had not taken a deeply close interest in what this amendment is about until I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said. About 30 years ago, I took over from my noble friend Lord Elton as the Minister in the Home Office responsible for prisons. Subsequently, I have been a patron of the Butler Trust, which has done a lot to support the work of prison officers and prison staff of all sorts in the work that they do, not only in England but in Scotland, where I was the Scottish patron. One of the most disturbing elements I found in my work, not only in the prison world but in the Butler Trust world, was the parlous state of those young people who ended up in incarceration in one form or another. It disturbed me immensely.

What is proposed by the amendment makes sense up to a point, but I am increasingly concerned that one of the ways in which the Government would be wise to try to buy off the opposition to this is by moving from the current negative procedure to the affirmative procedure and using the opportunity that affords them to allow Parliament to debate what it is not otherwise being allowed to debate. In that case, the Government will have the support of many of us, but denying that opportunity is something I find extremely difficult to live with.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not understand to which procedure the noble Lord referred. I can see no example of the negative or the affirmative procedure. In any case, in your Lordships’ House we either accept everything or vote it down completely; that is not amendable.

I approach this as a parent and a grandparent and as somebody who has been on a police authority, a social services committee and an education committee. I have visited secure establishments. Let me reassure noble Lords who believe that those of us who are expressing concern are not concerned about reoffending. I am concerned about reoffending for the sake of other young people as well of as the young people themselves. I am deeply committed to extending anything that will help young people not reoffend. However, I ask noble Lords to imagine that they are members of a local authority considering this proposal. Placed on you by law would be a duty of care to the young people concerned. Negligence could well end up with proceedings being taken against you.

We owe it to those young people to ask about this. I accept that the argument about secure colleges is lost, except for these two groups. I remain deeply uneasy. I cannot possibly do anything other than accept the noble Lord’s Motion and sleep easy believing that we have fulfilled our duty of care.

I again ask the Minister, for whom I have respect: why on earth will we not be allowed to debate and offer detailed observations before any decision is taken? That is a simple proposition. If the Government are proved right, your Lordships’ House will listen and be fair, but we are not being offered that. I ask every noble Lord to say to the Government: at least convince me before you ask me to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

As I indicated, there are inspectorates —HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Ofsted, the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams—and now we have a prospective report by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the Secretary of State wished to put these people in the secure colleges. With great respect to the noble Lord, what happens is that if they commit offences and a court has decided that it is appropriate to send them there, subject to all the other safeguards, they will be sent there. The Secretary of State has nothing to do with them being sent there. His task is to provide appropriate establishments.

I respect the concern that noble Lords have quite rightly shown for this cohort—and I fully accept that they have exhibited it not just now but at various stages during the examination of these legislative provisions. They have expressed their view, those views will have been communicated to the Secretary of State, among others, and this House has made its position clear. Nevertheless, having considered the matter carefully, I ask the noble Lord to decide not to press his amendment.

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would reconsider the issue of whether it is more appropriate to go to the affirmative resolution rather than the negative. I have sat on the Front Bench for many years with many of my colleagues here and have been through the same debate, but often it is wiser and more sensible to try to pursue something that allows Parliament to have that debate rather than simply to brush it aside. I understand the negative procedure only too well, and I hope that on this point my noble friend will reconsider.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, will he confirm to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the whole House that the present proposal is that there would be no parliamentary procedure at all apart from the laying of a report for consideration—no vote, no regulations and no SI is proposed?