Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Butler of Brockwell

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of Plaid Cymru in paying our tribute to the late Queen and extending our sympathy and condolences to all the Royal Family.

Seventy years ago, on a February morning, I was whisked away from my primary school in Bontnewydd by my father and taken down to Caernarfon where, on the steps outside the law courts, a proclamation was made, following the death of the King, that we had a new Queen. At the end of it, my father whispered to me, “It may be quite a time before you experience that again.” It most certainly has been.

As the MP for Caernarfon, I had the honour of welcoming Her Majesty to the constituency on several occasions. She always came with dignity and charm, and was always so well informed. The most memorable occasion for me was her opening of Wales’s National Assembly in 1999—our first Parliament for 600 years. On the day, I was with her, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and the then First Minister, Alun Michael. It was an honour indeed. She carried out that day with such dignity.

That evening, the celebration dinner coincided with the European Cup final, with Manchester United losing by a goal with a minute to go. They then equalised, and the joy was palpable. When they scored the winning goal in injury time, her “Whoopee!” was heard by the whole room as she almost rose out of her seat.

Her visit to the Welsh Senedd last summer was one of her last public engagements away from London and was very much appreciated. That was the occasion when she was overheard, one almost thinks deliberately, emphasising the importance of the Glasgow climate conference—a sentiment that will undoubtedly be shared by our new monarch.

Queen Elizabeth’s grace, humour, patience and devotion to duty were, and are, an inspiration to us all. Whatever our future debates about the constitutional relationships between the nations of these islands, Queen Elizabeth II has ensured that the monarchy is not in question and is a symbol of the shared heritage that we have within our diverse political structures and ambitions. May King Charles III inherit her remarkable talents and may she rest in peace.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hennessy—how we miss him today; he would have made a great contribution to this debate—used to talk about rising to the level of events. This is an event whose level it is difficult to rise to. It is also extremely difficult to rise to anywhere near the level of the opening tributes that we heard this morning. The British do these things rather well but those were done superbly well. If I may speak for myself, they made me very proud to be a Member of this House.

Queen Elizabeth was the sovereign during the whole of my professional life in the Civil Service. I want to make a few observations about the role of the sovereign in the constitution. I always regarded, and continue to regard, the sovereign as the embodiment of the British state. It is worth recalling that, like the Armed Forces—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is due to speak, I think—and the other Crown services, the Civil Service owes its allegiance to the sovereign. We owe our duty to the Government of the day because it is the sovereign’s Government—the Government appointed by the monarch. So the last official duty of the Queen, so bravely carried out on Tuesday in appointing the new Prime Minister, had more than a symbolic importance. The completion of the appointment of other Ministers will presumably be carried out by the new King. However, when appointed, they will be the King’s Government and we in this House will rightly take an oath of loyalty to him.

I make this brief excursion into our constitution to demonstrate that all of us who are servants of the Crown have a higher duty than simply to our political bosses. Speaking for myself, I found that my duty to Queen Elizabeth was not only demanding but inspiring. Her Majesty’s standard of service throughout her long life, to which so many tributes have been made, was one to which many of us may aspire but can never attain. Moreover, she carried out those duties with a grace, dignity and humanity of which the whole nation can be proud. She caused other nations to envy us.

This is a difficult and challenging time for the new King, as well as a moment of acute personal sadness for him. Nevertheless, he has had a long apprenticeship. He is his own person, as every individual should be, but he has demonstrated over many years his devotion to the welfare and success of this country and its citizens, as well as to the challenges that are being faced by the wider world. His mother has demonstrated the value of our monarchy. I wish our new sovereign well and pledge to him my loyalty and support as he carries forward that heavy responsibility.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Lord Butler of Brockwell

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, which was moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I will add a few comments of my own to explain why it is essential that a provision along these lines is incorporated into the Bill we send back for further consideration to the elected Chamber.

I make it clear that I have a great dislike of referenda as a tool for sanctioning complex legislation. A referendum may be all right for approving a simple, transparent, binary issue which cuts across traditional party divides, such as opening the pubs on Sundays in Wales, as was mentioned in Committee. The more complex the issue, the more inappropriate a referendum is. However, the genie is already out of the bottle. There is a valid question as to whether a decision taken by referendum can—or perhaps I should say should—be overturned by a vote by Members of Parliament or by a general election, and certainly not by Members of an unelected House. None the less, those MPs who at last year’s election gave their constituents a pledge that they would do everything in their power to ensure that the UK remained in the European Union are duty-bound to redeem that pledge by the way they vote, as are MPs who committed in the opposite direction.

By this amendment we would facilitate MPs having a choice at their disposal when the Bill goes back to them—and in fact, they would have two choices. The first is the fundamental one: that MPs can return to the question of whether the Bill should be amended by them to provide a referendum in circumstances where they deem that appropriate. If we reject this amendment tonight, we would in effect prevent MPs giving further thought to that issue. When circumstances change, sensible MPs may want to change their minds. However, unless we give them the hook on which to latch any initiatives relating to a referendum, we essentially lock out the question of a referendum in any circumstances whatever.

The second area of choice we would facilitate by this amendment relates to the circumstances in which a referendum may be required. I believe that if the Government were able to negotiate a deal which enabled the UK, while leaving the EU, to continue to have a customs union relationship with the EU, and which enabled our industry and agriculture to participate in the single market, as outlined in the Welsh White Paper put forward by the Welsh Government and opposition parties last year, that should be endorsed by MPs without a further referendum. Not least, such an option would resolve both the Ireland and Gibraltar issues, which would be as good a compromise as we are likely to achieve. If, however, the Government fail to reach a satisfactory agreement which protects the interests of exporters and those who depend on the availability of EU workers to meet their needs, and if they secure no agreement at all and we face the utter disaster of a cliff edge prospect, MPs must be allowed to revert the issue back to the people. If voters then endorse a no-deal exit from the EU, with all that that means, so be it.

Some noble Lords may well argue that the decision at that stage should be taken by MPs and that they, if they are so minded, should have the option of overturning the referendum outcome. There are, of course, two basic reasons why this may not be possible. The first is that the Government have repeatedly—and again today—stated that the only option other than the negotiated settlement will be to quit the EU without agreement; essentially, on world trade terms. The Government continually refuse to give MPs or this Chamber the option of being able to reject a hard Brexit. In these circumstances, I believe that MPs should be allowed the option of considering a confirmatory referendum as one outcome. This amendment gives them that option. It allows them the maximum flexibility: it does not instruct them to hold a confirmatory referendum but it allows MPs to go down that path, if circumstances so dictate.

It is for these reasons that I implore colleagues, even if they share my dislike for referenda, to pass this amendment tonight and, by so doing, to enable MPs when this Bill returns to them shortly to keep the referendum option open and, in the fullness of time, to use it if, in their judgment, that is the only way to ratify or reject a worst-case scenario of leaving the EU without agreement. I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. Although I have always maintained that the people ought to have the opportunity of a referendum on the terms of our leaving the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley said, this amendment does not mandate such a referendum. It gives Parliament the option of a referendum if, and only if, Parliament believes that the terms secured by the Government would be more damaging to our country than staying in the EU.

I supported the amendment that the House has just passed. Of course Parliament should be allowed a wider choice than the choice which, as the Minister admitted, the Government intend, and of course we must hope that the Government secure a good agreement. But Parliament should not be limited to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, described as a Hobson’s choice between a bad agreement and no agreement at all. For that reason, I will also support Amendment 62 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Reid, Lord Deben and Lord Balfe.

Although no one relishes the idea of a further referendum—I certainly do not—I believe that Amendment 50 is the logical consequence of the one that the House has just passed, which says that, if Parliament withholds approval of the withdrawal agreement, the Government must follow any direction approved by the House of Commons and considered by the House of Lords. I have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Lamont, against Parliament giving instructions to the Government. However, I believe that there will, in effect, be no choice for anybody about the instructions that would have to be given. About this, we have to be realistic. Whatever agreement is reached will be the result of long and painful negotiations. We cannot realistically expect the EU to be willing to reopen the negotiations and give us better terms at the behest of the UK Parliament—that is simply not a possible prospect.

It is in this respect that Amendment 50 goes further than Amendment 49. It recognises, in keeping with my view, that the only alternative to an unacceptable agreement is no agreement at all. That is not acceptable. The only other option is to withdraw our notice under Article 50. We must be honest that that is what a rejection of the agreement would entail. At the same time—