Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Wakeham Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, I have only recently come out of hospital, so I hope I can hang on to my stick and keep straight. I particularly wanted to come to this debate, not to say anything very remarkable but to listen to the speeches. The standard of the speeches that I have heard is as high as any that I have heard in this House over many years.
I think I am the Leader of the House of Lords from the longest ago—I was not Leader of the House of Lords the longest, but it is longer ago that I was Leader—and I have very much enjoyed what I have heard today. I will not go into my share of reminiscences. Listening to the debate, I wanted to say just one thing, which I think has not been sufficiently emphasised. Many of us who have been Ministers in the Government have been the slaves of their red boxes for years. I do not know whether it was for 10 or 15 years that I had to deal with my red boxes. I cannot imagine how I would have dealt with them for 70 years, but it was 70 years for which she did that.
A lot of what she succeeded in doing in her life was because she was so well prepared for every event. She was not only well prepared; she knew how to put that across in a way that did not reveal that she might have views of her own. Importantly, she put things across in an impartial way. In the excellent debate that we have had, the thing that I thought had not been emphasised enough was just what a lot of hard work she had to put up with over 70 years.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, at this saddest of times I join other noble Lords in sending sincere condolences to His Majesty the King and members of the Royal Family. This has been a very moving day because of the remarkable tributes paid by so many noble Lords. They were deeply emotional, reminding us all of the very real loss that our nation has experienced. Although a very strong nation, it will regrettably find it very difficult to come to terms with that for some time to come.
So much has been said about Her late Majesty but I should like to make two observations, one professional and one personal. Her late Majesty was patron of so many medical organisations—medical royal colleges, hospitals and other organisations—and the Queen’s example and her values inspired the professions hugely, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. That inspiration was vital at many times, particularly so during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Queen was, from the very beginning of her reign, patron of the King’s Fund, and we in the fund were deeply privileged to enjoy that patronage, which had a tremendous impact on the work of the fund over 70 years. Of course, during that period things have changed tremendously: life expectancy has increased and the way that medicine and healthcare are delivered has changed substantially.
The fund was established in 1897 by the then Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII, to raise funds for the hospitals dealing with the poor in London. Its purpose has changed substantially over that period, but in 2008 the fund was privileged to receive its royal charter from Her Majesty, which continued the capacity for us to pursue the work that was so strongly supported. That deep commitment to the work of healthcare professionals was not only reflected in its support of organisations here in the United Kingdom but throughout the Commonwealth, and was vital in ensuring that the values that Her late Majesty so clearly expressed and practised could remain fundamental to the practice of medicine throughout the world.
The second observation I should like to make is much more personal. It reflects Her Majesty’s deep commitment to the Commonwealth and, through that deep commitment and example, the opportunity afforded to so many from Commonwealth countries to come to the United Kingdom. Among those subjects who came from another Commonwealth country to settle here in the United Kingdom were my parents in 1961. I remember, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, how they were deeply inspired and moved by Her Majesty’s commitment to the Commonwealth and all its peoples, and indeed to those people who decided to come and settle here in the United Kingdom. It was a vital part of ensuring, during that important period in our national history, that subjects of all backgrounds had the capacity to make their contribution, to participate in the life of our country and, in the case of my parents, to contribute to the work of the National Health Service. It was a vital opportunity, afforded by a monarch who understood the importance of the sensitivity, kindness and example that would ensure the integration of those from all over the world in societies and communities across our country, providing the opportunity for them to make their contributions.
I remembered all this at a deeply moving moment in my own time: the day I had the privilege to kneel before Her Majesty and to swear my oath of allegiance on becoming a member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council. I was particularly nervous that day but, as noble Lords have indicated, any audience with Her Majesty was always attended by her determination to ensure that one was put at ease. Kneeling there, I was deeply moved because I understood that it was Her Majesty’s values, her example and the work that she had done over so many decades that provided the opportunity for my family to settle here in the United Kingdom and the remarkable occurrence of my kneeling before Her Majesty to swear that oath. The fine example and the values of service, duty and commitment, always shown with kindness and thoughtfulness, are very powerful qualities that will live in the hearts of every one of Her late Majesty’s subjects. God save the King.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lord Wakeham Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because I think that the issue before us is important but simple, and also because my noble friend Lord Selsdon has told me that I have made more than 6,000 speeches in Parliament since the date of the previous referendum Bill in 1975, so a short speech is probably to be recommended.
This is an important Bill for me, not so much because of its substance as because of the position that the House of Lords should take on a Bill of this sort. The previous referendum Bill was passed in the Commons by a majority of 64. At that time, many noble Lords, particularly on the Labour Benches, took the view that although they were totally opposed to referenda, it was not the role of the House of Lords to seek to overturn or delay the will of a democratically elected House of Commons if it wanted to consult the people. In 1975, I voted against the referendum Bill, but then I was a Member of another place. I am no great fan of referenda, but then I was a democratically elected representative.
The Bill we are considering today was passed in the Commons by a majority of more than 300, and I find it very hard indeed to think of a proper justification for opposing or delaying it here today. We know that, in practice, any amendment—I would vote for some of the suggested amendments if we could—would almost certainly be detrimental to the Bill’s progress and so it would be lost. An amended Bill would go to the bottom of the list in the House of Commons and never be reached.
I do not think that it is proper or right for us to seek to reject the Bill, or to alter it in such a way as to achieve its rejection. If I remember correctly, in 1975, your Lordships gave Second Reading to the Bill on 6 May, Committee on 7 May, Report and Third Reading on 8 May, without a Division, and shortly after it received Royal Assent. That seems to me to set an example that your Lordships would be well advised to follow.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, is surely that this House has no serious role in the debate; we should pack up now and go home. The normal position of this House as an advising House, looking coolly at what comes from another place, would be thrown out of the window. We should simply say. “They have decided, full stop. We should go home, because any amendment might scupper the Bill”. Is the noble Lord really saying that we should not pass any amendment because of that danger?
Lord Wakeham
I did not say that at all. If noble Lords want to vote against it, they can vote against it, but they should not pretend that there is any alternative.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I am not pretending at all; any amendment may well have certain consequences.
I am reminded of the noble Metternich, the great leader who, when news was brought to him of the death of his opposite number, the Russian ambassador, was alleged to have said, “What was his motive?”. We are quite entitled to ask of the Bill: what is the motive? What has changed the view of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past two years? Can it be anything other than the rise of UKIP? I congratulate the UKIP representative on the influence that the party has had on the Government.
Is it just the result of looking at opinion polls or the taking of soundings by a well padded Lord? Is it the fact that the Conservative Party has no confidence in the word of its leader, who has said that he would certainly have a referendum, and wants to tie him down? Equally, surely the Conservative Party has no confidence that it will win the next election. As many Members of your Lordships’ House have said, no Parliament can bind its successor, so this is a total charade. It may be a signal, but it is a signal only of the divisions within the Conservative Party. This is a partisan Bill and should be treated as such.
I could linger on the details of the Bill, but they are matters for Committee: the Electoral Commission, the wording of the question, whether there should be a threshold and the precise electorate. I just want to make three brief reflections at this stage.
First, there is the problem of the alternative. The Prime Minister put it well when he said that,
“the problem with an in/out referendum is it … only gives people those two choices: you can either stay in with all the status quo, or you can get out”.
Surely, if we seriously wanted to ascertain the views of the great electorate—Rousseau’s “popular will”—we should ask them, “What is the alternative?”, and therefore have questions on that. Is it the fact that you, the people, would want to be wholly alone? Is it the fact, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, that you would wish to evolve some sort of new, free-trade relationship with the Commonwealth? It is not clear that any members of the Commonwealth seriously want to do that. Certainly India would not. Perhaps Canada would, but you really need two to tango and there is no traction in that.
What about the Norwegian example? There is a continuing debate in Norway—I am part-Norwegian—and the Norwegians certainly know that with the single market, they are told without any serious input what they should accept. That is hardly democratic, but it is the current reality of the Norwegian relationship with the European Union. What about the Swiss? No—surely, rather than going into the emptiness of a void, there should be some way of ascertaining, if that be the case, what it is that the people want. What are the so-called alternatives?
I shall not linger on my second reflection, because the point has been made often, but the date of 2017 is wholly arbitrary and unrealistic. Since the Prime Minister has said that any negotiations will not start until after the 2015 general election, can the position be such that we will know clearly what is on offer from our European partners and that all the various ratification processes will have been gone through? The only question that can be put is: do you, the people, believe that the Government should continue along the course they have set? What are the prospects of a radical new deal and of it being done and dusted and ratified by 2017? The Prime Minister is not going about it very well. He must have read over Christmas the book, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, because he has already put off a potential ally in Mr Sikorski of Poland and harmed his relationship with Monsieur Mitterrand.