King’s Speech

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, before I come to say a word of congratulations to the new Minister, I must say a word of congratulations and welcome to my noble friend Lord Goodman, whose moving speech showed those in the House who did not know him before what a profound and thoughtful voice of modern conservatism his represents. He will be very welcome here.

I also welcome the Minister. His appointment has raised great hopes among the huge network of voluntary workers who try to do things to improve the prison estate; I must mention that my wife is a trustee of Give a Book, founded by Victoria Gray, which does reading groups in prisons. So many people are welcoming his appointment that the hopes are very high. I have to make a declaration of interest—or of thanks; I am not sure that it is in order in the House—because my daughter is a serial social entrepreneur. Her latest venture —having co-founded Now Teach, she has now co-founded Now Foster—is a charity that would not have got off the ground without the help of the Minister, his father and the Alex Timpson Trust, so I thank him for it.

The only piece of advice I give to the Minister is this: do not throw out the baby with the bathwater—if I may refer to some of my right honourable friends in that way. He inherits some very good things, and he should keep them. One excellent thing he inherits is a first-rate Chief Inspector of Prisons in Charlie Taylor. He inherits also Charlie Taylor’s report of 2016, from before he was the inspector, the Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. The previous Government accepted the principles of that report, but imitated the actions of a snail somewhat in pursuing it; eight years later, only one of the new secure schools in Kent has actually been opened. There has been a rather pointless argument as to whether academy chains or local authorities should run them—who cares, if they do the job?

That point helps to address one of the critical failings of our present system. The previous Government brought down radically the number of children in the justice system, which was very good. However, according to the good work of the staff of, for example, the Children’s Commissioner and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, there are probably around 1,500 children locked up—no one quite knows where all of them are, or even their exact numbers—often far from home, and without any education or wraparound care. As Charlie Taylor said in his report all those years ago, we are doing nothing, or worse than nothing, for them if they are locked up without education around them. Many are locked up—necessarily so, I fear, in many cases—by the use of the High Court’s inherent powers, with no proper placement available for them at that time. That causes what Sir James Munby, the former President of the Family Division, called in June this year a “shocking moral failure” in our treatment of those children.

This is not a very large problem in numbers—it is a failure of interagency working and of the complexity of bringing people together to do it—so solving it really is doable. Charlie Taylor laid out a good policy, the previous Government accepted it, and it should now be done. I urge the Minister, among all the many other pressing priorities that he will have, to look at this aspect of the failure of our current system, because it is rectifiable. He and his colleagues could put it right—not easily, otherwise it would have been done—with the resource available to them. If they can do that, they will have done something very important, alongside all the other things that they have to do. Those 1,400 or 1,500 of the most vulnerable children in our system need the most care of all.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for enabling some of us who worked with Mr Heath to say a word or two on this subject. I declare my interests in both senses of the word. From 1971 to 1973, I worked in the central policy review staff in the Cabinet Office, headed by the late Lord Rothschild. The unit worked very closely with the Prime Minister and his staff, helping to brief the Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively at 10 Downing Street and Chequers. I spent a good deal of time in both places—usually in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who I see in his place—preparing for these meetings.

In 1973 I left the Civil Service and joined Douglas Hurd, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, as his understudy as political secretary to the Prime Minister because Douglas had been selected to fight a parliamentary seat whenever the election came. In those good old days, to which we would do well to return, the extent of the political staff in No. 10 was two—Douglas and myself. When Douglas went campaigning, it was one. That may not have been enough, but I do not think it was necessary to increase the number exponentially.

When the election came in February 1974, which Mr Heath just lost, and throughout the subsequent period when he was leader of the Opposition, I led his private office. During that time Mr Heath was based principally in Wilton Street, where I would see him throughout the day and often late into the evening. When he lost the leadership election, I resigned my post but remained in fairly regular contact with him, at least until I accepted ministerial office under “that woman” in 1981 and was cast into relatively outer darkness.

I would make this point. I saw Mr Heath very close up indeed, at high and low points in his life. I travelled with him all over the United Kingdom, to the United States, to China to meet Chairman Mao and to France on holiday. I used to take him urgent papers to his racing boats. Incidentally, these were always described as yachts, but in reality, they were highly tuned racing machines on which I was forbidden to set foot in case I displaced some vital mechanism. These were not the yachts imagined in the fantasies of his accusers, who, I think, thought of something you might have a cocktail party on in St Tropez. I had to provide malt whisky at the end of the day, wherever we were, and on at least one occasion to knock on his bathroom door to get him get out of the bath and join the party waiting to leave in the election battle bus.

For that period—at least between 1973 and 1975— I was perhaps among the two or three people in the world who knew Edward Heath more closely and more continuously than anyone else. Yet—this is the first, but in a way lesser, point that I want to make—at no time was I ever questioned seriously about him by any of these so-called police investigations. It is true that, during Operation Conifer, a young contract researcher for the police, not a member of any police force, came to see me at Eton, where I was working. They were not a policeman and, without unkindness, I am afraid that I would have to say that the person in question had not the least idea what to ask me about, how No. 10 or the office of the leader of the Opposition worked, what police close protection was, or what life was like for the Prime Minister or leader of the Opposition. I remember having to explain what a private office was and the most basic facts. It struck me then, and strikes me still, as an example of the extreme amateurishness of the whole exercise that a political secretary at No. 10 and then head of the leader of the Opposition’s office was not at any point questioned by a professional about the circumstances of Heath’s life.

This case matters. I agree with the thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that there are arguments on both sides, but it seems to me that the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Lexden and by the late Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, one of the greatest public servants of the post-war period, matter. In this post-truth age, we will—indeed, we do—see more of this kind of thing: wild accusations thrown at leading public figures, which are believed by mad conspiracy theorists. If they are not dealt with properly, we will find it even more difficult to tempt good people into public life and into important positions in our democratic life.

The accusations against Sir Edward Heath were, I believe, rubbish; but I do not think that we can just let rubbish lie in, as it were, our public streets in the hope that it does no damage. I believe that the state owes some duty of care to those who undertake the public service on which we all rely. Of course, we should have public inquiries—we are expert at that—to apportion blame and guilt for failure but, I would argue, we should also sometimes deploy state resources to protect those who have served the state from suffering unfair damage. That is why I endorse my noble friend Lord Lexden’s campaign.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest on the register in relation to human trafficking. If I may respectfully say so, the most reverend Primate has put forward not only a very shrewd but a very wise proposal. It ought to be cross-party; it certainly should not be brushed aside as though it were just part of the Bill, because it is much deeper and goes much further.

I am very glad that proposed subsection (2) includes provisions for tackling human trafficking, because there is a chance that we might retrieve a little of the Modern Slavery Act—something of which this country ought to have been intensely proud, until last year and this year—if we manage to do something sensible, as the most reverend Primate has suggested.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a brief word in support of the most reverend Primate and to follow my noble friend Lord Horam. If we are to deal with this problem, it ultimately has to be on the basis of cross-party support, rather like defence. How are we going to do that without somebody first putting forward a framework that will, undoubtedly, be unsatisfactory to the other parties? Then there will be debate and ultimately consensus.

There has to be international action, but that is so difficult. Unless our own country takes a broad-based approach to this problem, we will drive the solutions to the fringes, which will be very dangerous for our politics. It has happened in Italy and Hungary, and is perhaps happening in the United States. It is happening around the world where Governments have failed to base their response broadly enough and therefore keep the extremists at the very fringes, where they always are.

The most reverend Primate offers a way of introducing that kind of debate into our programme. I am the last person to think that making a strategy is the solution to a problem. That is always the long grass—let us have a strategy and it will disappear for ever into committees. I did that myself as a Minister many a time. What he is offering here—and I hope we respond to it in the right spirit—is perhaps the beginning of a way in which we can broaden the basis of agreement about our approach, so that what does not happen, if, say, by some surprise the party opposite comes into power, is that it reverses everything that we have done. What will the electorate think then? They will say that these people cannot be trusted to deal with this problem, which is right in the general public’s mind. If we make it the knockabout of ordinary party politics, we will not have served our people well.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I had intended to vote against this proposal, but I confess that I am persuaded by the opening speech from the most reverend Primate. It is clearly a useful proposal, and contributions from around the House point to that.

I will make one point. It is a short-term point but I do not apologise for that. We really must not overlook the very serious problems that we now have in the channel. The public are very angry about it, and rightly so. It is extremely difficult to deal with. For all the criticism that is made of the Government, those who may be a future Government understand that it could be difficult for them too. If all that is continuing, there will not be a wider audience for these very important and longer-term considerations.