Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

My Lords, I belong to a generation of Caribbean young who had parents and grandparents who bemoaned the end of the Empire. My father was from Angola, but my mother was from Sav-la-mar, Jamaica, and I will never forget her and her mother constantly wishing for the better days of the 1950s. On one occasion, I listened to my mother railing against the new democracy in Jamaica, saying “Tsk, dem all useless, but de Queen, she gorgeous.” That sense of affectionate love for this distant lady—our sovereign, her sovereign—was deep and immense.

I also recall so clearly a radical Government appointed by election in the early 1970s who wanted to do away with the Queen’s Christmas Day broadcast. I remember from when I was a child the protests in Kingston. People came out on the streets for weeks, placarding and threatening to bombard the radio stations if they removed the broadcast. It continues to this day.

In the opening remarks from the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord True, and the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reference was made to the fact that the Queen passed through all these years without expressing an opinion. That is not quite correct, because I have the opinion in my hands in a letter from Balmoral Castle, which I am happy to show the House, dated 14 September 1976.

Some 46 years ago, when I was just 18, I received a letter from the press secretary of Her Majesty the Queen, Ron Allison, who passed recently. He wrote:

“I am commanded by The Queen to acknowledge your recent letter about the projected film on the life of Jesus Christ which a Mr. Jens Thorsen proposes to produce.”


Some of the older Members here might recall the massive public debate in 1976 about a Danish filmmaker’s interest in the intimate life of Jesus. The letter goes on:

“While Her Majesty finds this proposal quite as obnoxious as most of her subjects do, the preventing of the making of such a film in the United Kingdom, or the exclusion from this country of Mr. Thorsen, could only be accomplished within the laws of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, your letter has been referred at Her Majesty’s commands to the Home Office.”


The then Home Secretary, Mr Merlyn Rees, found it impossible to allow entry to the country to pursue such a bizarre interest.

Many years later, I met Ron Allison by mistake. He looked at me and said, “You’re—”, and I said, “Yes, and you’re—”. I was still in my early 20s. I said to him then, “Did you write the letter, or did Her Majesty the Queen dictate it?” He said, “Oh no, she dictated it.” So I said that she wished it be known that she had a view that this was obnoxious and, for those old enough to remember, it was front-page news for days. I still have all the cuttings from all those years ago. I featured on endless news broadcasts, as a young black man standing up at the age of 18 in defence of the faith and the Jesus she loved, and defending what should be proper process. Yes, the Home Secretary must decide, as he did, by order and command, but Her Majesty made it clear that things were “obnoxious”. That is the one view she expressed in her long reign, and I am proud to hold it in my hands.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the existence of Princess Elizabeth was borne in on me in 1947 at the time of the royal wedding. It was a blaze of sudden colour—and I still have the souvenir illustrated magazine that my mother kept—in a post-war world of austerity and ration books. “But where did she get the coupons for that dress?”, the grumpy ones said.

After the shock of the death of her father, it was a struggle to find a television in our street where we could watch in black and white the Queen’s Coronation. However, the following year, I remember pouring out of school to greet her and her consort when they came to my home town of Wrexham on her coronation tour.

I have no anecdotes. On the few occasions I met her personally, I was too tongue-tied to do much more than mumble my name. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to the first day of the opening of the Welsh Assembly, in which I played a less distinguished part. I found myself in the corridor leading from the front door to the Chamber, which was empty. At the far end, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, the then Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly, was greeting Her Majesty. There were no doors, but I spotted the choir of the Welsh National Opera in an alcove; it was about to deliver a motet especially written for the Queen. As she passed along the carpet towards me, I joined the choir and did what was known in those days as a John Redwood: I opened my programme and mouthed the words as the choir of the Welsh National Opera looked at me in some astonishment.

I knew the Queen and her family better than any family save my own—the media saw to that. She went through many highs and lows during her long lifetime. I have followed half a generation behind with my four children, encouraged and supported through the triumphs and disasters in my own family by the knowledge that she, though a Queen, had passed through similar personal difficulties with courage and determination. That is what is meant by the many people who are saying today, “She was part of my life”.

I will speak of Balmoral. I first visited the castle and its grounds as a member of the public, as thousands do, in 1963. Ever since, I have spent much of every August in the valley of the Scottish Dee. I have walked around and above Loch Muick many times. I have climbed Lochnagar celebrating with friends in the June twilight, sitting at the summit and waiting for the sun to rise. I scaled it more than 20 years ago from the Glenshee road in solitary grief following the death of my wife, Nan. I have fished there since with my wife—my noble friend Lady Walmsley—below the famous, old military bridge across the Dee at Tulloch on the estate. On 18 August, only three weeks ago, my grandson caught his first salmon from a pool directly opposite Balmoral Castle.

If I love that area as a tolerated visitor, how much more did Balmoral mean to the Queen? Where else could she enjoy peace, tranquillity and the absence of ceremony? I have never understood metropolitans who regard its glinting waters, dappled woods and wide, open hills as cold and boring. For me, it was entirely understandable that Balmoral should be the place where Her Majesty finally came home.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, the opening comments today have set the tone exactly right on how this House wanted to make its tributes to Queen Elizabeth. The Leader of the House, the shadow Leader, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, all presented, in their own ways, the whole feeling that we all have of respect, sorrow and pride in what Her Majesty had achieved—alongside the human side, which is also extremely important for us all to remember at this time. I thank noble Lords for those comments; it was the House of Lords at its best and encapsulated all that we feel.

I will say a few words from my own personal experience. In 1997, I became the first woman to be appointed President of the Privy Council—it was an honour. It was also a strange event; the title had to be changed because previously it had been Lord President, and I am told that there were many discussions with the palace and the Cabinet Office as to whether that word—“Lord”—could be dropped. Indeed, the first time I met the Queen, she commented on the change, and we had a nice exchange of views as to what was going to happen in the future for more equality—she was very interested in that.

Autocrats, Kleptocrats and Populists

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, strategic litigation against public participation, known as SLAPPS, is abusive lawsuits pursued with the purpose of shutting down freedom of speech. They have been used against journalists, media outlets, whistleblowers, activists, academics and NGOs that speak out on matters of public interest.

The UK has become a global hub for financial crime and corruption. As the Prime Minister would say, we are world leading. My noble friend Lady Kramer referred to £100 billion a year. Along with that, our courts possess the tools to shut down reporting on such matters—cases for libel taken not for their legal merit but for the effect of silencing a critic by locking them into a long legal struggle. We have developed a class of lawyers who call themselves reputation managers.

Chatham House reported on the Abramovich action against the journalist Catherine Belton and her publisher HarperCollins. She had lived and worked in Russia for many years and had claimed in her book Putin’s People that Abramovich had purchased Chelsea Football Club at the behest of the Russian president Vladimir Putin. A statement from the firm Harbottle & Lewis, solicitors representing Abramovich, claimed that Belton’s book, “falsely alleges that” Abramovich “acted corruptly” —a claim that was struck out in the early part of those proceedings. However, a further three Russian billionaires and the Russian state oil company Rosneft followed Abramovich in filing civil claims against HarperCollins, Belton’s publishers. It is much to their credit that they stood by their author and the claims were apparently settled satisfactorily.

The chilling effect of this type of litigation is most visible in the threat of action rather than action itself. Karen Dawisha, the author of the 2014 book,Putin’s Kleptocracy, was forced to change publishers due to legal concerns in the UK. Her publisher, Cambridge University Press, dropped her on the grounds that those implicated would sue and that the disruption and expense would be more than it could afford. The book was published in the US. There are numerous examples. The Maltese journalist Daphne Galizia, who was murdered by a car bomb, was facing 47 libel actions brought by Maltese politicians and others for her unbending and brave journalism exposing corruption. After her death, her family accused Mishcon de Reya, a British firm of solicitors, of “hounding” their mother.

There are rules of court that make it possible to strike out actions in this country but this power is not used often enough. We have fallen behind. Other countries, specifically Canada, have introduced primary legislation to deal with the problem. Its Act with the section, Prevention of Proceedings Limiting Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings), was recently approved and upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Following that Canadian precedent, I have drafted a Bill to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action. The Bill would give a judge the power to strike out an action at an early stage where the respondent satisfies the judge that the proceedings arise out of a communication that relates to a matter of public interest. The burden would then shift to the claimant to show that the proceedings have merit, the respondent has no defence and that the communication is sufficiently serious that it is in the public interest for it to proceed. In determining that public interest, the judge would consider the right to freedom of expression, the right of public participation in democratic discourse, the chilling effect of the proceedings and any disproportion between the resources deployed by the claimant and the amount of damages that might be awarded. The court would have power to award damages if the proceedings were brought in bad faith and award costs against the claimant on an indemnity basis. I hope that your Lordships will hear more about this Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Environment Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is late and I have little to add to the excellent introduction to Amendment 126 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the important perceptions of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, did not give the impression of having any substantive objection to the proposal when it was mooted in Committee, just that there was no international consensus for it when it was last discussed, when the ICC was created. First, the world has moved on since then, and we are all more aware of the immense importance of biodiversity in averting the worst effects of climate change.

Secondly, we have very good diplomats, whose job is to build consensus. They should be tasked to make a start on this case. We need to make a good showing at Glasgow, do we not? A start on the process of securing agreement to this provision would give us a leading position.

Lastly, I see from the very good briefing provided by Peers for the Planet that my late husband is credited with supporting this idea, in 1985. I am not sure that he confided this to me at the time, but it is a poignant and happy reminder of how much we agreed on. I am proud to continue in the family tradition.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords who signed this amendment, for bringing forward the interesting concept of ecocide. I am sorry that I missed the debate in Committee.

It was the use by the United States of Agent Orange as a means of destroying the Viet Cong’s forest cover in northern Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos which brought to the attention of the international community the devastating environmental harm that it causes and the ensuing refugee crisis. When Saddam Hussein burned 600 Kuwaiti oil wells, the resultant atmospheric pollution spread as far as the Himalayas and caused a severe threat to the surrounding fragile desert ecosystem. There have been many other examples of armed conflict causing environmental destruction.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court deals with the four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the statute specifies that, within the scope of international armed conflict, the following actions could constitute a war crime:

“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the … environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.


As part of the review of the genocide convention in 1973, a draft international convention on the crime of ecocide was prepared for UN consideration by Professor Richard Falk. He outlined an offence, including the use of chemical herbicides to defoliate and deforest natural forests for military purposes and the use of bulldozing equipment to destroy large tracts of forest or crop-land. This was all within the concept of military conflict. Of course, it is a precondition of a war crime that there is a war, or at least armed conflict, and that there is a commander who can be made responsible for his conduct. This amendment might be appropriately considered as a military offence in the Armed Forces Bill currently before the House. But I suspect that the noble Baroness is more ambitious and would wish to include in her definition of ecocide deliberate destruction of the environment outside a war setting.

The problem then becomes twofold. What is the actus reus and what is the mens rea? If President Bolsonaro were to decide, as a matter of policy, to destroy the rainforest to increase open grazing land for cattle, he does not do so merely out of a malign desire to destroy but with the intention of increasing the economic prosperity of his country. He may be right, or he may be completely mistaken, but has he caused widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment which is clearly excessive in relation to the economic advantage anticipated? Would a court question his political decision?

To bring the matter nearer to home, if Prime Minister Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon were to agree to the exploitation of the new Shetland oil field, many would argue, including me, that it would do immense damage to the environment and contribute significantly to climate change. Even if the members of the International Criminal Court agreed with that assessment, they are hardly likely to lock up the Prime Minister or the First Minister of Scotland.

Rachel Killean, of Queen’s University Belfast, has thoughtfully gone in a different direction. She seeks to develop the concept of a separate chamber of the ICC with a jurisdiction to deal with environmental destruction. She believes in “‘greening’ the Rome Statute” and argues that

“the reparation framework adopted by the International Criminal Court”

for war crimes—the payment of compensation—

“offers an opportunity to … respond to environmental destruction”.

She postulates that the court could have jurisdiction in respect of states as well as individual politicians, and could award

“reparations that explicitly recognise the harm caused by environmental destruction”.

It would be difficult to expand the jurisdiction of the court from its existing concern with genocide and war crimes—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me for interrupting, but I fear the noble Lord is making a Second Reading speech. He was not here for earlier stages of the Bill, and the hour is late. Perhaps he could bring his arguments to a close.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I have one sentence further.

The pressure of climate change and its effect on world populations will give the concept much more resonance. Ecocide may lead to genocide. Wanton destruction of habitat, as in Myanmar, causes a flood of refugees, and that is a crime against humanity. I look forward to further developments in the future.

European Union and European Atomic Energy Community (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his exposition of this order and his customary clarity; I thank him for that. I have read the order through and I am satisfied that it fulfils the purposes for which it will be made. In particular, I endorse what the Minister said about the importance of good relations with diplomatic staff throughout Europe, and I hope that that will be the case.

My own experience of diplomatic immunity goes back many years. I recall claiming diplomatic immunity on behalf of a gentleman who produced magnificent letters, which were supposed to be for Her Majesty’s Government, seeking immunity. Our problem was twofold: first, he was not accredited to the Court of St James and, secondly, the president of the state—which will be nameless—had suffered a coup, and the last we knew of him was that he was a taxi driver in New York, and was unable to give evidence. That was my experience at the time, and I would be interested to know whether ambassadors are still accredited to the Court of St James—I do hope so.

To be rather more serious, of course we are all very concerned about the case of Harry Dunn, and the Minister has pointed out that there is a carve-out in this order for road traffic offences. Does this include causing death by dangerous driving? That is the very important issue in the Harry Dunn case. The person who knocked him down, Anne Sacoolas, claimed diplomatic immunity and departed this country, but her claim has since been questioned. That gives rise to a further question, which perhaps the Minister can answer: how does a diplomat satisfactorily establish that he can claim diplomatic immunity when that is the case? It seems that Anne Sacoolas got away with it.

Genocide: Bringing Perpetrators to Justice

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for all the work he does in this area and for the passionate way in which he introduced this debate.

I will start with a quote:

“The United States will provide no support or recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.”


Not surprisingly, those are the words of Donald Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September 2018. In 2020 President Trump issued a sweeping executive order authorising asset freezing and family bans against Fatou Bensouda, the ICC chief prosecutor, and took away her visa. Trump said that anybody who assists ICC investigations risks the same sanctions. Of course, this has had a broad, chilling effect on co-operation with the ICC.

Trump indicated that his policy of sanctions might extend to allies—specifically Israel—and demanded that the ICC change its course. The ICC prosecutor concluded in December 2019, after examination, that all the statutory criteria to proceed with a formal investigation in Palestine had been met, but the court is currently seeking a ruling on jurisdiction.

Not surprisingly, neither China nor Myanmar submits to the jurisdiction of the ICC, although 123 countries have ratified the Rome statute. The threat of investigation by the ICC prosecutor resulted in a significant change of government policy under the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which was recently before us, when genocide, torture and war crimes were at the last gasp omitted from the presumption against prosecution. That they had ever found their way into that Bill is a disgrace.

The most effective thing that can be done just at the moment to tackle genocide is for this country actively to persuade the Biden Administration to take up the responsibility and to ratify the Rome treaty. Is this happening?

Shawcross Report: Compensation for Victims

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in accordance with international law, when assets are frozen they continue to belong to the sanctioned individual or entity—in this case, the Libyan state. Any revenue raised specifically from frozen assets would have gone into the Government’s Consolidated Fund. I assure the noble Lord that the victims of such actions, and terrorism, are very much at the front of the Government’s mind and we will seek to continue to support victims across the piece when it comes to issues of terrorism.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I served on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for Great Britain until 1992. There was then a concurrent scheme for Northern Ireland, which was subject to a strict one-year limitation period for claiming, without any discretion to extend, save for children. Would it not be desirable now—particularly if the Government are in receipt of income from frozen Libyan assets in the way of tax—to open up a window of, say, six months, for claiming on an ex gratia basis for those who were too terrified or intimidated to claim as victims of terrorist acts at the time?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said but, as he will appreciate, I cannot respond to the specific terms of his proposals. He will be aware that in January 2020, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government did legislate to establish a victims’ payment scheme. The Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for delivering the scheme, which will be open for applications from March 2021.

Hong Kong: National Security Law

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we look at the sanctions policy specifically to ensure that the evidence base and thresholds are met. As I said, while I cannot go into specifics, we will continue to keep the situation under review—and, yes, act in co-ordination with our allies, including the United States, whose actions we observe closely in this respect.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Title XII in Part 3 of the UK’s new deal with the EU provides that if the UK has “denounced”—that is the word used—the European Convention on Human Rights, the whole of Part 3 and all the security provisions cease to have force. Will the Government make representations to the European Commission not to approve the EU-China trade deal now before it unless there is a similar provision requiring China to abide by the current Hong Kong bill of rights—specifically its Article 16, on freedom of expression, and Article 17, on freedom of assembly? Will the Government ensure a similar provision in any trade deal between the UK and China?

Hong Kong: Legislative Council

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

The offence of the four lawmakers who were expelled without legal process from LegCo—two barristers, an accountant and a medical consultant—was that they had allegedly supported requests to the US to impose sanctions on China for its interference in Hong Kong. What about this country? The United Kingdom signed the bilateral joint declaration, which by Article 3 guarantees the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong citizens. Does the Minister agree that we have a moral and imperative duty to take action now, not just to wring our hands—to impose sanctions or to take China to the International Court of Justice, as my noble friend suggested earlier?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises Article 3, and that is exactly what we are pressing: that China must uphold its international obligations. I have already covered the point on the ICJ; we will continue to work on a multilateral basis and bilaterally in raising this issue with Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong special administrative region as well.

Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as I have already said, we raise concerns about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir regularly and constructively with the Indian Government. I agree with the noble Lord—I am sure I speak for all noble Lords on this—that we condemn, without any hesitation, all forms of terrorism. Any targeting of a community because of its religious rights or beliefs is totally against the norms of any functioning democracy.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of applications for habeas corpus have been lodged in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir over a 15-month period, arising out of the arbitrary detention without trial of thousands of people —including, as we have heard, political and community leaders—under the public safety Act? The court rules specify a 14-day time limit from lodging an application to the hearing. They have not even been listed, let alone dealt with. This is especially urgent since the shocking wave of arrests on 28 October. Will Her Majesty’s Government join the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association in its strenuous protests to the Indian authorities against these breaches of the United Nations human rights convention?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are clear. We have a constructive and strong relationship with India which allows us to raise candidly and privately issues of human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, or human rights concerns we may have. As I have said, any allegation of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. We make that point to the Indian authorities.

China

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s first point, as I have already said, I will not speak about what future designations may be. However, I agree with the noble Baroness; I think we have all been appalled by some of the scenes we have seen recently across the media on the treatment of the Uighurs. They were quite chilling in every respect. On the issue of access to Xinjiang, work was done previously looking at the human rights commissioner visiting China, and I hope that that will come to fruition at some future point.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an historic interest, having fought a case against extradition from the UK to Hong Kong for four and a half years through 12 separate applications for habeas corpus. A senior Hong Kong solicitor told me today that almost all the extradition proceedings now current are concerned with either money laundering or drugs. Now that we have terminated extradition in both directions, how do we ensure that Britain does not become a safe haven for Hong Kong criminals, nor Hong Kong a safe haven for those committing crimes in the UK? Would it not be sensible to have a generous approach to claims for political asylum by young protestors from Hong Kong who do not qualify to come here as a BNO?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, the United Kingdom has been, is and will remain a place where people from all over the world seek asylum for a number of reasons. Each case is judged on its merits, and we have provided protection to many people across the world who have suffered persecution.