Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome this Statement. It is clear that the Second World War continues to cast a long shadow. Names of the fallen are etched in stone in every parish of this country. The conflict transformed our society, not just in the families scarred by the conflict but by accelerating the role of women in the workforce or in military service, through the migration of our fellow subjects from across the Empire to help rebuild these war-torn islands, just as they had helped to defend them, and in the technological advances made in the face of adversity. In the secrecy of Bletchley Park, this country quietly invented the computer, helping to break codes and ciphers, foreshortening the war by some two years. In the desert of New Mexico, scientists from around the world invented a weapon so terrible it brought an end to the conflict in the east and still forms the linchpin of our defence today.

That past is not so distant. Here in your Lordships’ House sit the grandsons of our wartime premier and his deputy, the descendants of many others who rendered distinguished wartime service, and a young boy who came here, like thousands of others, as a refugee on the Kindertransport. Later today, in Grand Committee, we will continue to discuss plans for a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, one of the greatest crimes against humanity. This afternoon in this Chamber, we will discuss the European Convention on Human Rights, part of the international determination that the atrocities and violations of the 1930s and 1940s must never happen again.

But that recent past begins to slip from living memory. The Holocaust Educational Trust is doing brilliant work capturing the testimony of the last survivors, using modern technology to digitise them, so that future generations can interact with them as though they were still among us. Just this week, we lost 105 year-old Group Captain John Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much for defending these islands in the Battle of Britain. The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister led the tributes from the nation, which remains humbled by their service. At the commemorations this summer, there will be fewer and frailer veterans. Can the Minister say what plans there are to put them at the heart of the proceedings, so that we can renew our thanks to them and hear their stories while we are still able to?

The Minister and I were both born closer to the end of the Second World War than to today; that gap grows ever wider for us all. But, for children born today, even the events of this summer will not form part of their consciousness. I am pleased to see mentioned in the Statement the work being done by the National Theatre, the Imperial War Museum, the National Lottery, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and many more. What else are the Government and their arm’s-length bodies doing to ensure that the lessons of the Second World War are passed on to future generations?

It is sadly clear that those lessons are as relevant today as they ever have been. The scourge of antisemitism continues to poison minds in this country and others. Extremism and intolerance are once more on the march. Only yesterday, Hungary, a member state of the European Union, banned Pride marches taking place in its country. The Statement which follows this one is about the return of conflict to the European continent, and of the siren song of isolationism. It is clear that we need to remind ourselves and our friends of the lessons of the last century.

Just a few steps from the Minister’s office in her department is the room from which Winston Churchill addressed the crowds on VE day, 8 May 1945. He told a war-weary but jubilant nation

“this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole”.

He asked them:

“When shall the reputation and faith of this generation of English men and women fail?”


This summer, let us make sure that we uphold that reputation, renew that faith, and give thanks to all those who fought for the freedom that we cherish today.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I encourage the Government to make as much as possible of this, as an opportunity to explain to our younger generation and educate them on the implications of what we were fighting for in the last war.

Like others, I have taken my grandchildren to the Imperial War Museum, and I was happily surprised to see pictures of my parents-in-law in uniform in the display on Bletchley. I will be taking them to the Western Front at Easter, where we will walk over the areas where in 1918 my father, as an 18 year-old in the Highland Division, fought. It is ancient history for our grandchildren, but it is highly relevant to them.

I hope the Government will make this very much a commemoration of an allied effort. In our commemoration of World War I, I felt that the then-Government tried too much to make this Britain versus Germany. We had Polish squadrons in the RAF. We had Belgian squadrons in the Bomber Command. We recruited Caribbean people who served as ground crew. We had Polish divisions. I have had many conversations in Saltaire with elderly Poles who fought in the Eighth Army, who then came to Britain after the war. We had French divisions on British soil. We had a Czech brigade. We had people who went back to work in the resistance in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. We had Poles and Ukrainians who came here in large numbers as displaced persons and refugees after the war, whose grandchildren have almost forgotten about that. We also had 2.5 million people in the Indian army. We underplayed that in our commemoration of World War I. Many of their descendants now live in this country and are British citizens, as indeed are many of those who volunteered with the RAF from the Caribbean during the war. All that needs to be explained to the younger generation, in all its diversity.

I hope the Minister has already got her tickets for the Parliament Choir concert. I hope that all other Members of the House—those who will not be singing—will be there on 7 May for an excellent concert, for which we are already rehearsing.

We also need to educate our younger generation on the parallels between where we are now and where we were then. The Russian attack on Ukraine is motivated partly by a claim to be able to defend Russian minorities in other countries. That is what the Germans were doing in Czechoslovakia in 1938. We might even wish to remind the public that steps towards European integration after the war, in which Ernest Bevin and Winston Churchill played a large part, were absolutely part of preventing war again in western Europe. We need a sober recollection of the dangerous world we live in, the changing threats we face, and the values which we and our democratic neighbours must defend.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, before the birthday boy, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, begins to wind up for the Front Benches, I will speak very briefly to my Amendment 28, which seeks to provide for a maximum participation threshold, as well as a minimum. I do so with the humility and self-awareness of one who is speaking on the Bill from both the Front Benches and the Back Benches.

My amendment is an important flip side to the debate and there are some salutary examples from what happened in another place. A few years ago, there was the invention of a number of websites and journalistic tools, such as TheyWorkForYou, which track the participation levels of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. That encouraged some to game the system by making lots of short speeches or interrupting others with great frequency, preferring quantity over quality.

There is value in restraint. I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said about what we can learn from academic theory. The Swiss-American psychologist and pioneer of organisational development, Edgar Schein, set out the concept of humble inquiry. He said that those in public life or leadership positions should ask themselves three questions before making a speech. Does it need to be said? If so, does it need to be said by me? If so, does it need to be said by me now? I should say that I was put on to the work of Professor Schein by one of our more taciturn and thoughtful colleagues in your Lordships’ House.

I have often suspected that, if one looked at the top 10% of speakers and the bottom 10%, it would serve as an interesting competition about those who one would rather hear from. I asked the Library to crunch the numbers for me relating to the last Session. It is not as large or interesting reading as the now famous spreadsheets of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but it certainly reveals some interesting points.

I am sure we can all guess some of the names that appear in the top 10%, so I will not name names, other than to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the Green Party is the group from which we hear most frequently. We have the pleasure of hearing from the noble Baroness on 68% of the days that she can speak. Personally, I find the other 32% of days to be days of great sadness.

All of us who miss our late noble friend Lord Cormack will be impressed to hear that he still made it into the top 5% of speakers, even though he was sadly taken from us before the end of that Session.

By contrast, 106 noble Lords spoke on only 1% of the days that they could have done. If one glances down that list, which is available from the Library, one sees many examples of what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has rightly described as low-frequency, high-impact Members. One sees the names of three former Cabinet Secretaries, a former Governor of the Bank of England, former Leaders of your Lordships’ House from both sides of the House, a director-general of the Security Service rendered quiet by his service in the Royal Household as Lord Chamberlain, and fellows, and indeed the next president, of the British Academy. I see some of them in their places today—I see them in their places frequently—and I am glad that they are using their brains more than they are using their mouths.

I agree with what my noble friend Lord Swire said about the dangers of debate that just repeats verbatim the briefings we are given from lobby groups. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, says about the many other valuable ways that Members of your Lordships’ House can influence the way that we are governed in this country. With that, I shall take my own advice and shut up.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, beneath the wide-ranging and sometimes unfocused discussion we have had on these amendments, there is a degree of limited consensus that we should build on. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, shows us the way we should go. I hope that between Committee and Report, we will have a number of discussions, off the Floor, about where we go from here that will build on that limited consensus. I hope that the Government will consider accepting a limited number of amendments, which would show us the direction in which we go further, as well as committing to make some clear statements about how they would see further developments.

On the questions of attendance, participation and retirement, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Newby that some of this can be done through Standing Orders and agreements of the House and does not require legislation. That is part of the way that we may go forward.

I suggest that we all know pretty well what we mean by a minimum level of attendance and participation, and can name quietly, but we will not, some of the people who fail to fulfil it. I recall some years ago being invited to an office in the City of London to brief the CEO of a rather major operation on how to make a maiden speech. He had been a Member of the House for almost a year and I do not think that he had attended more than two or three times. He did not understand the House and he felt that he ought to make a maiden speech. That is clearly below the level of attendance and commitment.

This is a Parliament in which we are supposed to parley with each other—to exchange ideas, to listen and to learn. I have learned a lot through taking part in Bill Committees. I look at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and I remember the Procurement Bill, which we worked through in the previous Session. It was not my area of expertise, but I learned a great deal from him and from a number of other participants. We are here to examine in detail proposals that the Government make and to discuss difficult issues that the Government sometimes do not want to grapple with. That requires a minimum level of attendance and interaction between us. That is part of what we are here for.

Having said that, I hope that we will now be able in the rest of this evening to get through several more amendments, much more rapidly. I hope that the Government will think about what assurances they need to give us in order that we can make greater speed on Report. We should never forget that how this House is seen from the outside is something that we all need to be conscious of. The size of our House and those who come in for just 20 minutes and go out again are an embarrassment, and are picked up by the media. Honours and obligations need to be balanced. A later amendment suggests that we should be moving towards separating honours from the obligation to attend and participate, but these are all questions for the longer term. Dividing what we think this Bill can achieve from what we need to commit ourselves to discuss for the future is part of what we need to discuss between Committee and Report. I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn, but we should bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is offering us a very useful way forward.

British Council

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome today the vice-chair of the British Council as a new Labour Peer. We on these Benches look forward to robust defence of the British Council from the Government Benches. This is a Covid loan. The loss that the British Council made was due to Covid and the drying-up of English language teaching. There are many other Covid loans outstanding. Many of them were fraudulent, as we know; this clearly was not. The Government will struggle to recover some of those others. This was clearly an honest loan made in honest circumstances. Can we not treat this in that context, while the Government perhaps work harder on recovering other Covid loans which are a great deal less honest?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I will not get into the issue of the other Covid loans, because it is beyond my remit. The noble Lord talks about defending the British Council. There is no need to defend the British Council from this Government; we are strong allies, supporters, friends and protectors of the British Council. The British Council will thrive under this Government. However, it is right that we are going through the process that we are now to make sure that the British Council is as strong as it can be going forward and that it can adapt to face its current challenges, needs and demands. The noble Lord is absolutely right to mention that our dear and noble friend Lady Alexander, who is currently the vice-chair of the British Council, will soon be joining us on these Benches.

BBC Funding

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

That thorny question is one for the future funding review, but it is important. We want to ensure that the BBC has a sustainable income, but also that the sources of that are fair. I have pointed already to the declining number of people who are paying for a licence fee and the declining number who watch television live. Funding models which are predicated on some of those conceptions of the past will look increasingly anachronistic as we move into the BBC’s next century. We have also seen licence fee evasion rising, so it is right that we look at this to make sure that we are coming up with a good answer to the difficult question that the noble Lord poses.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, have the Government looked at models of public service broadcasting in comparable countries in terms of both international and domestic activities? In the United States, France and Germany the international dimension of Voice of America and so on is publicly funded, but here the international dimension of the BBC has been financially squeezed by the Government in recent years, which is a disaster for British foreign policy.

In France, Germany and the Netherlands the domestic side is also substantially publicly funded, while in the US it is not; it is given over to commercial interests. The Minister will be as painfully aware as the rest of us of the destructive impact that has had on maintaining a national dialogue at the centre of democratic politics in the US; instead, it encourages culture wars. There are powerful commercial interests in this country—the Murdoch press more than anything else—that would very much like to see that happening here, and it is not at all clear that all members of the Conservative Government are still committed to the principle of public service broadcasting.

Can the Minister, as a One Nation Tory and not a member of any of the “five families” on the right, say that he, at least, is committed to the principle of public service broadcasting, which implies a broadcaster that one can trust—the BBC comes out high on public trust in all public opinion polls—and a substantial chunk of public funding?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The whole of the Government are committed to the BBC’s important role as a public service broadcaster. My right honourable friend in her Statement in another place rightly called the BBC “a great British institution” that

“plays a vital role in our culture and creative economy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/23; col. 514.]

As we look at future funding options, we will look at how public service broadcasting is delivered in other countries, both the ways in which that is done and the pros and cons of those models.

The noble Lord is right to highlight that the BBC plays its role in a globally exceptional way. I have already talked about the more than 360 million people who tune into and rely on the BBC World Service for impartial news and analysis. We should be very proud that it is our national broadcaster that people across the world tune into, and we want to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many decades to come.

Classical Music

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, anyone who has heard the annual performance of “Messiah” by the Halifax Choral Society, with the Black Dyke Mills Band and orchestra, will know that we are not entirely without some high-quality music in Yorkshire. The classical music industry is a net surplus invisible exporter for this country, and it is absolutely vital that we keep supporting it. I declare an interest as a former chair of Voces8, which spends quite a lot of time touring on the continent and in North America. Are the Government now within sight of getting rid of these bilateral arrangements, which do not really provide for orchestras and others to do proper tours of the continent—all the way from school orchestras such as the London Schools Symphony Orchestra, which is superb, to classical orchestras as such?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We are tripling funding for the Music Export Growth Scheme to more than £3 million over the next two years, which will enable more touring artists to break into new international markets. We are also expanding our Export Support Service to further help creative exporters, including touring musicians. We want our musicians to tour the world so that their work can be enjoyed overseas, just as it is here in the UK—including in Yorkshire.

UK Citizenship: History

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to revise the historical section of the Life in the United Kingdom handbook for people applying for United Kingdom citizenship.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Life in the United Kingdom handbook is for all UK residents who need to meet the knowledge of life in the UK requirements when applying for either settlement or citizenship. New impressions are published regularly to keep it up to date, most recently in February, and plans to review the handbook are due for consideration later this year.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The Minister knows very well the sharp criticisms that professional historians have made of the rewriting of the historical section some eight years ago, changing its interpretation of the slave trade, of imperial history and of domestic political controversies. In the next major revision, will the Government consult outside and cross-party advisers, particularly over the portrayal of Britain’s engagement with the countries from which so many of our new citizens come, such as the United States—my American daughter-in-law has just taken the test—the Indian subcontinent, the Caribbean and Africa?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yes, I am well aware of the letter from historians; I had an interesting exchange about it last summer with Professor Frank Trentmann, its lead author. Criticism of the history sections of these tests is perennial. The first edition, written by the late Professor Sir Bernard Crick, was criticised by historians, as was the more recent edition, which was published under the coalition Government. We are grateful to the historians for their thoughts. They made some valid and thought-provoking comments that will certainly be taken into account as we review the handbook, but we do not agree with all the criticisms that they made and are wary of history by petition, no matter how eminent the petitioners.