Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Woolley of Woodford Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will always treasure the privilege of having enjoyed many discussions with Her late Majesty about her enthusiasm for sport—never restricted to equine events but they were never far away. From my first meeting with her, over tea at Royal Ascot when I was Minister for Sport back in the 1980s, to her memorable involvement not just in the opening ceremony but throughout the years leading up to the Olympic and Paralympic Games 10 years ago, every conversation was an insight into her love of sport. In horseracing, as we have heard, she had a truly encyclopaedic memory for equine breeding and bloodlines. She was also equally interested in the recollections she could share of great sporting events that she attended. All were moments of great joy to her. No surprise, then, that she is the only person in history to have declared open two Olympic Games.

I was to learn that, for her, sport was a beacon of hope for communities. Sport gave her a unique vista from which to share and celebrate an enthusiasm that was so central to the life of her husband and so key to the many sporting successes and achievements of members of her family. Her late Majesty was both a mother and grandmother to Olympic athletes, and many members of her family have been involved in Olympic sports both domestically and internationally.

I believe that it was the joy that sport generated within her family that led her to recognise, build upon and empathise with the belief that she shared with countless hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. This showed in the genuine enthusiasm with which she celebrated the achievements of athletes and the coming together of like-minded nations in a way that nothing else could. Her late Majesty recognised that sport was underpinned by a trio of timeless and essential values: excellence, respect and friendship—values that she embedded in her remarkable approach to life. Only genuinely held values can be reciprocated in kind. The reaction from the world of sport, governing bodies and international federations of sport around the globe have echoed their appreciation of that genuine passion, including the International Olympic Committee and the British Olympic Association, of which she was patron.

The late Queen witnessed the value of sport in small African villages and communities on every continent, and she recognised that sport was far more than elite competition. For her, sport for all was the connecting thread that binds together and unifies the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, universality, tolerance and solidarity, which were the building blocks of her relationships with everyone she met.

As many noble Lords have said, Her late Majesty’s close association with the Commonwealth, particularly the Commonwealth Games, of which she was patron, most reflected her understanding of love and love of sport, and its power to form bonds of communication and instinctive affection. To Her late Majesty, the Commonwealth Games confirmed a lifelong commitment to people who recognised that, despite their religious, political and legal differences, the Games were and could be a catalyst for good—welcome proof that so many members of the Commonwealth family could meet in friendly rivalry and competition and, from the world of sport, create lasting friendships across borders and nation states, which can find their genesis in sport. That affection was reciprocated in full.

Since then, every Commonwealth Games has become a trademark opportunity for Her late Majesty to demonstrate her passion for uniting communities and doing what she could to build a world of seamless affection, respect and admiration. In late July 1966, only a few days before she presented football’s World Cup trophy to the England captain Bobby Moore after the final at Wembley, she stepped out into the courtyard at Buckingham Palace to place a message for Jamaica into a specially designed baton, and she fully engaged with those Games.

But horses were her great love. Here in Parliament, preparations for the day of one memorable State Opening of Parliament had to take into account the need for the carriage horses and an Ascot landau, which is one of the five carriages kept in the Royal Mews, to be at Ascot for the royal procession. The dates looked set to clash in the royal diary. The royal carriages and horses set to bring Her late Majesty to Parliament were also needed to take her down the straight mile that afternoon, and they could not make it in time. There was little doubt about which venue took priority that day. The horses relished the Royal Ascot mile, and I am sure that they were not alone.

This communality of sport provided the British public with one of the many means of showing their respect, affection and love for Her late Majesty. She understood the power of so many different sports, not least country sports, and their power to transcend social boundaries, to develop a common language that forms strong binds across societal divides, to reach out and to connect. She so genuinely understood these values, and by embracing them the world of sport is united in a sense of loss, gratitude and respect. God save the King.

[Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)]

My Lords, one of the downsides of being one of the youngest Peers on these Benches is that you are expected to go last. It is a privilege to pay tribute to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I would like to make two points, one general and one personal.

When we talk about public duty, we barely do the phrase justice when associated with Her Majesty the Queen. I recently watched that documentary again made about the Queen, telling the story through her lens, and I was struck by one of the phrases that she used when she spoke about public duty. She said that public service is sacrifice. My Lords and Ladies, what service and what sacrifice she has given us. We in both Chambers could take a leaf out of her book when it comes to selfless service; it is not about us and our often inflated egos, but about what we do in public service.

On a personal note, like some other noble Lords here, I would imagine, I had my day at the Palace. Almost three years ago to the day, I was knighted. When you go in, you do not know who is going to knight you, and I was nervous already. When I knew it was the Queen, I was as nervous as nervous could be. Most people out there only see the Queen on TV or on our banknotes, and there she was in front of me, in real life. She sensed my nervousness, leaned forward and made me feel extremely comfortable. She began chatting, and we were even joking at one point. My son in the audience was craning his neck like a giraffe and looking around, saying, “That’s my dad.” When I came out, I came round to him and he came to me enthusiastically and said, “Dad, you made the Queen laugh. What did you say?” I leaned back and said, “Son, it’s a secret.” It was a special day for me and for all of us. May Her late Majesty rest in deserved peace, and God save and good luck to the King.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we all share a sense of gratitude that we are given the opportunity, as Members of your Lordships’ House, to pay tribute to Her late Majesty the Queen and to welcome King Charles III. I share that luck, and I want to share also one or two of the messages that I have received from all over the world and ask why so many people should write. The prince of the Yazidis has sent a note, saying: “We all grieve in your loss and we wish you perseverance in the face of this irreparable loss.” We have a message from the deputy head of the council of representatives of Ukraine. In the middle of a ferocious war, he finds the time to say, “We miss your Queen.” In fact, he put it more powerfully than that. He said, “We bow to your Queen.” That is Mykhailo Laba of the Ukrainian house of representatives, in the middle of war.

I think it is because Her late Majesty represented the goodness of our public life. That, I think, is the heart of the matter. I found that she had a tremendous capacity for stilling conflict. Some of your Lordships may recall a time not so long ago when we were in ferocious conflict, not just in this House but in the other place, and we received a message saying to come round to Buckingham Palace. We were split into two different groups, because there were far too many of us with both Houses. But the ferocity between us was so great, even in the parties themselves, that people refused to share black cabs—and when you refuse to share a black cab with a colleague, that really is a serious business. I recall well that we went up the steps in Buckingham Palace very slowly, with people not speaking to each other. When we got to the top, we were ushered into one or two of the big rooms. We were still highly hostile. I simply cannot remember the cause. Maybe it was one of those awful moments when we were fighting over whether there should be a general election. It was something as profound as that.

Quite suddenly, and totally quietly, the Queen, unaccompanied, entered the room, just by the doorway. She was almost invisible. She turned to the first person on her left, a man who was extremely angry, and just asked him how he was. He lost his nerve completely. The anger dissipated, and the black cloud over his head disappeared. As that happened, she turned to the next person and the next, and I promise you that, in about three or four minutes flat, we were all friends again. We waited, and the Queen came round to every person in that room and then went on to the next room and did the same. We all came back here in a completely different frame of mind. She had this extraordinary capacity for being the still, calm voice in the middle of the war, as it were. Perhaps that is why so many millions of people around the globe have expressed utter misery at her loss.

I can find no better way of describing her than a Shakespeare comment in “Henry VIII”. Forgive me, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but at that moment Shakespeare used the word “England” to encompass our sceptred isle:

“She shall be, to the happiness of England,

An aged princess; many days shall see her,

and yet no day without a deed to crown it.”

Is that not Her Majesty the Queen? Every single day for 70 years, and earlier than that, she did one piece of good if not more.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Woolley of Woodford Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 151, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I want to start by commending the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and Southall Black Sisters for their work on this amendment and more generally for their work on behalf of migrants. I also want to mention a dynamic Christian group, the Black Church Domestic Abuse Forum, made up of academics, lawyers, pastors, therapists and counsellors who would, as well as representatives of Southall Black Sisters, very much like to meet the Minister to discuss these and other related issues. During the course of the Bill, we have heard a great deal from many unsung groups such as Southall Black Sisters who, by the way, have been on the front line of this work for more than 40 years.

I believe that the Government need to shift their position and ensure legislative protection for all migrant women. This amendment is a test for the Government as to whether they will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable women in our society today. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hussein-Ece, and many others have given us eloquent and passionate chapter and verse about the plight faced by these women, including intolerable coercion and the use of absolute power by abusive men. In effect, the Government are operating a two-tier discriminatory system of support for those fleeing violence, one in which migrant women and children, in the absence of state protection, are at heightened risk of escalating abuse, exploitation and harm. Their plight is summed up by Farah, a survivor being supported by Southall Black Sisters:

“I guess that No Recourse To Public Funds means that it is ok for me to be violated, physically and mentally abused by my father. I guess the Government approves of people like me being treated like I was.”


I appreciate that the Government have committed to support the migrant victims scheme pilot, but, frankly, the support is not enough. It will not reach the majority of abused migrant survivors who urgently need protection. Southall Black Sisters has estimated that the number of abused migrant women who are subject to NRPF and need support is likely to run into the low thousands—anywhere between 2,000 and 4,000 women a year. At a stretch, the pilot project is likely to provide only minimal support for up to 500 women for a maximum period of only 12 weeks. What answer should Southall Black Sisters and other groups give to the thousands of women and children who are turned away because the money has run out?

Without this change to the Domestic Abuse Bill, migrant women will continue to be turned away routinely at a time when they most need help and, worse still, are being regarded as potential immigration offenders rather than the victims of domestic abuse. This could be a matter of life and death. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, we have borne witness not only to the Windrush scandal but to the Black Lives Matter movement as well. These are transformative events that have shed light on the deep and widening nature of structural economic and race inequality in the UK. This Bill offers the Government a real and ready opportunity to change course and provide redress for those who have been historically, and are presently, being excluded from protection and from their rights because of their background or immigration status. This would demonstrate a commitment to the promises made by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, following the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, to address institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issues of race.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 160 while offering my sympathy and support for the other two amendments in this group. I reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that this is a landmark Bill and needs to be as near perfection as we can possibly make it. I speak also as a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Istanbul convention is one of the key cornerstones of the achievements of that council over the last several years. It grieves me that I regularly see on the material put out by the council that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the convention, although of course it added its signature in 2012.

The idea is that our legislation is not yet in line with all the requirements of the convention, and that we are working on that. Earlier today, I heard extraterritoriality mentioned in debates and that a parallel effort is being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly which, mercifully, will deal with a major part of what prevents us at this minute ratifying the convention. That leaves us with Article 4(3) and Article 59. The whole question of discrimination has been properly alluded to as a very important thing for us to accord. I believe that the Government wish to do that, but they have taken the extraordinary step, having seen the recommendation in what is the fourth report since we have had these annual reports, to refer the matter into a pilot that will sit from December last to the end of March. That pilot’s findings will help us to quantify and find sustainable responses to this particular need.

I say that it is ironic and it is because, in a sense, the two other amendments in this group, were they on the statute book, would provide exactly the guarantees being sought and would allow us to ratify the convention at once. Is the fact that we have the pilot, which goes on to the end of March, going to make it necessary or impossible for us to include any measures to deal with discrimination for migrant women within the timescale of the passage of this Bill? I cannot see that we can possibly do the Bill and include any outcome from this process, which means that we will have missed the opportunity in this landmark Bill to deal with the two outstanding obstacles to our signing the Istanbul convention.

I missed a lot of these riveting debates because I was in Strasbourg, virtually—but we were talking about the same things. It pains me that we have not ratified the convention. At this minute Turkey and Poland are on the point of withdrawing from the Istanbul convention, and our moral stance in urging them not to is greatly diminished by the fact that we ourselves have not ratified it. With all that in mind—and this point has not yet been made, although it has been alluded to many times—I wish that these amendments could be made. Some 58 people and organisations wrote to me, as I am sure they wrote to the Minister, to say that all the evidence we could possibly need has been gathered. What is to stop us going forward? Why cannot we find a way between now and Report to leapfrog any obstacle, if necessary? Is this really impossible?

At the end of the day, it will all come down to money—£1.5 million will not do what needs to be done in the next five months and certainly, it will take a lot of money to deal with this in a sustainable way in the fullness of time. The domestic abuse commissioner designate—what a welcome appointment and what a clear-sounding person she seems to be—says that, unless migrant women with no recourse to public funds are included,

“their options are brutal.”

So, there it is from the person who will be overseeing this whole area of our national life.

I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that, even though we are out of sync with the passage of the Bill, we can hope in the not too distant future to incorporate retrospectively all that we are seeking to do through these amendments.