Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen
Harriet Harman Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an excellent speech from the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), which I am sure will have resonated in every Member of this House and, indeed, everyone in this country. It was a brilliant speech.
I am grateful for the opportunity to pay my tribute to the Queen, on my own behalf but also on behalf of my constituents, particularly those who, coming from Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean, held the Queen in such high regard.
We are a constitutional monarchy, and for we MPs, the Queen was ever present in the interwoven relationship between the monarch and her Parliament. She underpinned our democratic system for over 70 years—underpinning it but never intervening in it. She was always salient but never meddled. She avoided controversy not by staying in the background—far from it; she performed her role to the utmost—but by respecting the boundaries. She carried out her duties and gave us her full commitment for us to carry out ours. When many denigrated, she always respected and supported Parliament. We should be very grateful for that.
Between her Ministers—not just Prime Ministers—there was regular contact. After Labour won the election in 1997, I went up to the Palace, where she appointed me, like the other new Secretaries of State, to the Privy Council and bestowed on me the seals of office. They are actual seals, which are given to you and you take back to your Department to be locked in a safe. When, just a year later, I was sacked and the seals were taken out of the safe and back to Buckingham Palace, my diary was empty and my phone stopped ringing, my office was astonished to get a call from the Palace. No one else wanted to have anything to do with me, but the Queen wanted to see me. I was invited to take tea with the Queen, for her to thank me for my service as Secretary of State.
My point is that the relationship between our Queen and Parliament, and our Queen and Government, was never just on paper, but was always active and always encouraging. She radiated British values of duty, patriotism, internationalism, charity and service. But while she embodied British values, she never intervened in politics, and that is constitutional alchemy—nothing less.
It is evident that everyone, even those who do not agree with the hereditary principle of the monarchy, cannot but marvel at her personal qualities; and I want to marvel at how she could do all this flawlessly, not just over so many decades, but as a woman starting her reign in what was emphatically then a man’s world. We have to remember what attitudes were at the time. The order of the day was that men were in charge and women were subservient. The man was head of the household, and the role of a woman was to get married, have his children and support him. In the 1950s, when she was crowned, I was a child, and I remember my mother warning me that people thought men knew more than women; that men’s views were valuable, while women’s were to be disregarded.
It was in that atmosphere that she stepped up, as a 25-year-old married woman with two children, to take her place at the head of this nation and play a huge role on the world stage. What determination and courage that must have taken. The Prime Ministers she dealt with were mostly men, and mostly twice her age. Things were very different then; huge change has taken place during her reign. Things were very different when, six years ago, she threw open Buckingham Palace for us to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour”, and to celebrate how much women had achieved.
As Sir Tony Blair said, she was the matriarch of this nation: a matriarch for us on the world stage, and a matriarch too at home, in her own family. As well as being our monarch, she was the mother of four children and had many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and it is to her family that I extend my deepest sympathies for their loss and condolences for their grief, which we all share.
Speaker’s Statement
Harriet Harman Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I am now going to bring in the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). May I just say, Harriet, that this shows how the House can be at its best, and that it is at its best because of the love for you, Jack and your family?
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of myself and my family, I warmly thank all hon. Members who have spoken today. I say to everyone from all the around the country who has sent us cards, emails, texts, tweets, and who have posted on Facebook, that the memories they have shared with us, and the respect that they have shown for Jack, have given so much comfort to me and his beloved family as we face the total shock of his sudden death from heart failure just three weeks ago.
Jack hated inequality and oppression, and his life’s work was a steadfast focus on supporting those who were fighting against it. His roots in the Irish working-class immigrant community, his solidarity with black and Asian people fighting against inequality, and his respect for middle-class people who, though not suffering hardship themselves, wanted to work to end it for others, made him the polar opposite of the culture wars and the living embodiment of the coalition that is the Labour party. He spoke up for people and they heard him, and that made them stronger, whether they were those he worked with or those he had never met.
Much has rightly been said about Jack’s support for me in my work. It was phenomenal and it was unswerving. But it was not just because I was his wife; it was a matter of principle. Jack believed that men should support and respect women, and he detested men who he saw holding their wives back in their own self-interest.
For all of us who received it, Jack’s support was a super-power. It made us all walk taller; it made us all feel stronger. We will so miss him. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your tribute, for your kindness to me and to his family, and for allowing us this time today to pay tribute to Jack.
Human Rights Legislation
Harriet Harman Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of forensic legal work and analysis he has put into this, as well as for his political and parliamentary contribution to the debate. He is right to say that the reforms will enable us to take measures to deal with the very real problems that his constituents and mine, and those in all four corners of the UK, are concerned about.
Article 8 is an interesting illustration. A lot of people say, “Well, we will still have to comply with Strasbourg”, and it is true that ultimately we will still have to accept the obligations under the convention, but the democratic shield will provide us with a proper means of stretching the margin of appreciation within the boundaries of the convention. Also, the case for article 8 expanded far more aggressively and energetically in this country, and it was later that the Strasbourg Court followed the case law in this country. So what we do is important, and the relationship is two-way. That is why the margin of appreciation, the dialogue and the provisions in the consultation document are so important.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement. It sounds as if he has come to the House with many of the complaints that all his predecessors since the Conservatives have been in government have made when they pledged to change the Human Rights Act, but those proposals have ended up amounting to nothing. We shall see whether he is able to turn his concerns into anything of substance. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we will obviously look carefully at his consultation and respond to the Gross review. Can I just say how pleased and relieved I am that he has made such a strong commitment to the European convention on human rights and all the rights protected therein, including article 8—the right to private and family life? I hope he will be able to confirm that he will do nothing to make it take longer or cost more for people to enforce their rights. He pledged to stand by the European convention. We cannot have a situation where those rights are available only for those who can afford to enforce them.
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her perfectly reasonable and thoughtful response. She is right that we will stay within the European convention. If she looks me up on the record, she will see that I have consistently said that the problem is not the convention, which is totally unobjectionable as a list of rights. She asked about Conservative politicians bringing these concerns to the House of Commons. That is right. There have been long-standing issues with the Human Rights Act, but it is not just Conservative politicians. I cited Jack Straw—there have been others—as one of the architects of the Act who has been seriously concerned and has made the case for reform. So there are, across the political divide, strong arguments for making a change. We have put proposals forward—that is the difference—including draft illustrative clauses precisely to stimulate the kind of debate we should have. I think that that answers not only the right hon. and learned Lady’s point, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, about pre-legislative scrutiny. By putting text out there for consideration, we can get right to the crux of these issues.
The right hon. and learned Lady rightly asked about remedies. We will, of course, retain effective domestic remedies, but what we will do with the permissions stage is have a check, which the Strasbourg Court itself has, on unmeritorious claims. It is also right that it has been a long-standing principle in this country that he who comes to equity must come to the court with clean hands. [Interruption.] She is nodding. I hope she agrees. So I think it is right for us to look at strengthening the provisions for the courts, within their discretion, to be able to take into account the wrongdoing of those who claim human rights.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House
Harriet Harman Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
I think the hon. Gentleman prepared that intervention before he heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), who said that, despite his voting against the Government, that was a misrepresentation of the conversations he had.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is speaking in this debate rather than the Leader of the House, whose job it is to deal with the standards decision? Is this not adding insult to injury and showing that the Government really do not understand the issue?
Steve Barclay
With due respect, first, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber with me and, secondly, the right hon. and learned Lady well knows, not least as the Mother of the House, that the Cabinet Office overseas the Government response across Departments, including on a number of the issues covered by this issue.
Tributes to Sir David Amess
Harriet Harman Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Beyond the horror that we all feel, Sir David’s family are first and foremost in my thoughts. I want to add my heartfelt sympathy to his wife and children. Their statement, released in their unimaginable shock and grief, shows such extraordinary dignity.
Sir David was one of the most dedicated but also the most affable of MPs. He looked beyond party differences to work with so many of us on a multitude of issues of common concern. That is why there are tears on all sides of the House this afternoon. To give just one example, most recently he took the lead on a cause that I then took up: the injustice done to young, unmarried mothers whose babies were taken from them in the 1960s and 1970s. We all have examples of when he worked with us. My tribute to him will be to redouble my efforts on that cause and to remember and work in the spirit that he exemplified: commitment to constituency, commitment to Parliament and a belief that he could and did make a difference. Sir David Amess, rest in peace.
Afghanistan
Harriet Harman Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the Father of the House.
I strongly agree with what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who speaks with the experience of having served as Prime Minister. I particularly agree with what she said about the threat of terrorism and the need fully to reinstate our aid budget, the issues for NATO and the proud legacy of our troops.
We have all looked on in horror as the events in Afghanistan have unfolded. I join everyone who is urging the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to do everything they can to help UK nationals, including my constituents, who are stranded and in hiding in Kabul, desperately needing to get back home to the UK. We urgently need to evacuate those who worked with us, who thereby feel that they are vulnerable and to whom we have a moral obligation. The Government are setting up a refugee resettlement programme. I urge them to make a realistic and generous assessment of the scale of the need and to work with all local authorities that want to play their part in giving a warm welcome to those who are fleeing. The Government also need to work, of course, with NATO countries and more widely on an international resettlement programme.
We need to think about those who cannot or do not want to leave, particularly women and girls. When the Taliban were last in control, there were literally no girls in school. Now—at least, up until the Taliban took over again—40% of schoolchildren are girls; over the last 20 years, there has been a whole generation of girls who have been educated, and a whole cohort of young women who have been able to work and want to continue to do so.
When the Taliban were last in control, there were no women in public life—no women to speak up for other women. Women were silenced. Now there are 69 women Afghan MPs. Indeed, three years ago, one of them—Elay Ershad—came to this Chamber to speak from the Front Bench while participating in our Women MPs of the World conference, and was welcomed by the former Prime Minister to No. 10 Downing Street. The President has fled but Elay is staying in Kabul with her daughters, in solidarity, she says, with her people. What courage. The Afghan army has retreated, but so many Afghan women are standing their ground. All those women politicians and activists are determined not to let the progress of the last two decades be crushed. They now face great jeopardy. I know that the whole House, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will express publicly our solidarity with and admiration for Afghan women MPs, who, as parliamentary pioneers—having stepped forward into public life to make a reality of democracy for that half of the population of Afghanistan who are women and girls—are now, in the face of such an uncertain future, determined to protect and defend those rights.
As to what we can do, I would say: do not just listen to the male leaders about what we need to do for women. I say to the Foreign Secretary, do not just speak to the men; pick up the phone to those women Afghan MPs, ask them what we can do to support women and girls in Afghanistan, and then do it.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Harriet Harman Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to add my tribute to the powerful speeches that have already been made to celebrate the life and role of the Duke of Edinburgh. For more than 70 years, he was at the heart of the royal family, that most historic and traditional of British institutions. Yet, as has been said, in many ways he was ahead of his time.
He was ahead of his time on the environment. This year the UK will host the 26th United Nations climate change conference, amidst the recognition here and globally of its importance. Yet more than five decades ago, he was urging us, with clarity and foresight, to understand how all living creatures on this planet are interdependent. These views were so much ahead of their time that they were met by some with derision.
He was ahead of his time on young people, with the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, recognising the interconnection of physical and mental wellbeing as a route for young people to develop to their full potential. One of the many success stories of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award is the work that goes on at Westminster House youth club in my constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. It gets more black and minority ethnic young people through the award than almost anywhere else. Many of those young people have had a difficult start in life or have not thrived at school, yet through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award they find a route to self-confidence and success.
The Duke of Edinburgh was ahead of his time as a husband. One of the remarkable things about Prince Philip is that he chose, in his marriage, to put himself second and make his central role in life that of supporting his wife in her role as the Queen. He sought never to eclipse her, only to support her. Way back half way through the last century, that was profoundly counter-cultural. The expectation was that to be a man was to be head of the family, and particularly in the public domain it was the man who would play the leading role, and the wife who would support him. If that—sadly—still remains largely true today, how much more of an iron rule it was 70 years ago. His decision to give up what would have been a glittering career in the Navy, and to make it his duty to support his wife in her role, took him into uncharted territory and left him exposed. For if he was not the head of the family, what did that make him? There was no reassuring recognition that he was no less of a man for what he did in putting the Queen first, and himself second. It takes a remarkable man to be a leader, but an even more remarkable man to support a woman leader, and that is what Prince Philip did.
When we hear the Queen speak, we know that she always weighs her words carefully. What she said at their golden wedding anniversary in 1997 was that Prince Philip had,
“quite simply, been my strength and stay all these years.”
What a loss it is for her to lose that husband, that partner, her liege man of life and limb. We rightly pay tribute to Prince Philip’s work on the environment, young people, our armed forces, and much else besides. He did his work, but, above all, he enabled the Queen to do hers. For that he deserves our recognition and gratitude. He served this country by serving his Queen.