Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I, too, share the deep sorrow and grief felt throughout the nation, the Commonwealth and overseas for the passing of Her Majesty. Her devotion, commitment and strength of purpose were not only most remarkable but sustained so magisterially throughout her long reign. I offer my condolences to His Majesty King Charles III and all the Royal Family.
I was 22 years old and on my flying training course when Her Majesty ascended the throne aged 25. It has always been a mark of her greatness that she assumed her role and responsibilities at so youthful an age and in such full measure. While attending the state visit of her parents to South Africa in 1947, she made on her 21st birthday the vow, already repeated today, that
“my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”.
It was an admirable and most impressive pledge for a 21 year-old young lady.
Indeed, it was my privilege to meet her for the first time as soon as two months after she made that vow—still a princess and attending one of her early royal solo events. The occasion was the centenary celebrations at my school, Radley. The Archbishop of Canterbury had preached in chapel. The warden and others had made speeches of welcome and thanks. The school prefects, of which I was one, entertained the princess, less than four years our senior in age, to tea in our study. No masters were present; we had her all to ourselves. We plied her with meringues and biscuits and presented her with a box of chocolates; Radley’s archive still holds the receipt, making clear that this sweet offering cost all 15 of us not only 16 shillings and eight pence but a whole week of our sugar ration. Also in that archive is a copy of part of her handwritten letter to a friend, describing her day at Radley. She wrote:
“The tea with the prefects was very enjoyable, and certainly a great change from some of the rather dull teas one has on official occasions. This one couldn’t have been more fun.”
She was well known for her sense of fun, as well as for her sense of duty and responsibility.
Of course, during my time in the senior ranks of the Armed Forces, and even later, I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty on numerous occasions. In 1991, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, she asked me personally to Buckingham Palace to brief her on the ongoing operations in the first Gulf War. She was, as always, deeply interested in the performance of her Armed Forces.
It is the greatest of blessings to have known such a charming and charismatic person. May she rest in peace and in our memories for ever.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was born two and a half years after Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth ascended the Throne. Until yesterday, in common with the majority of people in this country, I had known only one monarch. For so many of us, the Queen alone represented what we think of as and understand by the concept of monarchy. She was “the Queen”. Her reign was one of exemplary, selfless and faithful service, sustained by a profound Christian faith—a life of service inspired by following the way of Jesus, the Servant King.
However, it was not a slavish adherence to duty. Many people have commented on the late Queen’s pertinent comments on visits, her informed observations and the real interest she showed in people and communities. She engaged with these people and their communities on visits for 70 years and more, and invariably left them feeling much better for having met her. It is testimony to the gracious manner in which she fulfilled her role as our Queen.
Comments have been made today and in many of the commentaries over the past 24 hours about the dramatic changes that have taken place in our country, across the world and in society since the Queen ascended the Throne in 1952—things that almost certainly would have been unimaginable in that year. I recall reading somewhere that, at the age of 50, she was the first head of state ever to send what we now call an email. The Scottish Parliament was probably only a twinkle in the eye of some political activists, but the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, recalled her visit to the Scottish Parliament’s Sitting in Aberdeen on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee in 2002. She gave so much encouragement to those of us who had been in there from the beginning and had taken some brickbats from the press for what we were doing. I also recall that, when she opened the new Scottish Parliament on 1 July 1999, she referred to the
“pragmatic balance between continuity and change”.
Truly it was her ability to achieve and maintain that pragmatic balance over seven decades, not least in political and constitutional relationships, that was one of the key hallmarks of her reign.
I first met the Queen in Kirkwall in 1987 when she unveiled a new stained glass window in St Magnus Cathedral on the 850th anniversary of the cathedral’s foundation. When I last met her, less than three weeks ago, she referred to that visit. As a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a church in which she always showed a keen interest, I had been asked to preach the sermon at the Sunday morning worship in Crathie church. The Queen graciously invited me to spend two nights at Balmoral Castle on her beloved Deeside—but no barbeques. It was a privilege to have had such quality time talking to her. Her mind was sharp. She had a keen interest in what was going on. I experienced the warmth of her personality, which so many people have talked about. She so readily put me at my ease.
It was also a privilege to engage with close members of her family over those two days, who also did so much to make me feel welcome. It is them—the family to whom the Queen was a mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, aunt and mother-in-law—I have particularly been thinking about over the past 24 hours. As we give thanks for the life of the Queen—a remarkable life of humble leadership and service—I know that we will want to keep in our thoughts and prayers her close family, especially His Majesty King Charles, for whom her death is so very real and personal. May they know the comfort that Jesus promised to those who mourn.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, at this stage in your Lordships’ proceedings, it is not easy to say very much that is new. However, I want to echo in particular the words of the right reverend Prelate who led our prayers and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in suggesting that our mourning for the longest-reigning monarch in our history should be infused with a spirit of gratitude. For it is we, the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, who are the beneficiaries of that sense of duty, devotion to service and dedication to the well-being of her subjects about which so many have spoken. She applied those principles in practice in a way that provided inspiration and leadership without ever trespassing for a second into the realm of party politics. In the words of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, she never put a foot wrong.
Much is said these days about soft power: the way in which a country can influence events without necessarily relying on military or even economic clout. It is impossible to exaggerate the extent to which Her Majesty influenced across the world a positive perception of the United Kingdom. She was soft power personified.
Much has been said about the way she put people at ease, and I had the privilege, with my wife, of spending a night at Windsor Castle when I was leader of the Opposition. I was amazed to find in the library the trouble that had been taken to assemble a collection of objects which related to my constituency, Folkestone and Hythe—objects I had known nothing at all about and which were quite remarkable.
Perhaps the most telling example of the way she could put people at ease occurred when a friend of mine who had been subject to much trauma was invited to lunch at the palace, sat next to the Queen and, in the middle of the lunch, froze. The Queen sent for the corgis and, together, they fed the corgis, and my friend unfroze and was able to continue the conversation.
Much has been said about the way Her Majesty was regarded with such enormous respect and admiration far beyond our shores. I finish with one reminiscence. I was in a Caribbean country when a new governor-general had just been appointed, and the local newspaper published an article giving advice to the new governor-general. It said: “You will have many difficult decisions to make, and we suggest that when you are confronted with those decisions, you ask yourself one question: what would Her Majesty do?”
My Lords, we have lost a great monarch, a great friend and, as she described herself, a servant—our country’s greatest and most faithful servant.
European Union Bill
Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That this House do agree to Commons Amendments 14A and 14B to Lords Amendment 14.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, we have had a number of interesting debates on Clause 18 at every stage in your Lordships' House and in the other place. We have heard from those who sought to ensure that the clause was more than declaratory and from those who expressed concern that Clause 18 might somehow affect our obligations as a member state. As my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have said, and I have made clear, that is not the case. I hope we have assured your Lordships' House very effectively that this clause is declaratory and is intended to be declaratory. It underlines the existing legal position and confirms how directly effective and directly applicable European Union law takes effect in the United Kingdom, no more and no less. It will certainly not change in any way the constructive activist/pragmatist approach that this Government have and will continue to pursue in our engagement with our European Union partners on the priorities that matter to the people of this country.
Although the clause is declaratory, we believe it serves an important and valuable purpose. I echo the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern who said on Report:
“It is important that this declaratory measure should be made because of the theory sometimes propounded that Community law in the United Kingdom derives from the treaty alone by virtue of the European Union legal order. I believe that it is right that we should make it plain at this juncture that that is not so”.—[Official Report, 15/6/11; col. 790.]
I welcome the acceptance by your Lordships’ House and the other place of the principle underlying Clause 18. What we have before us, as we did on Report, is the question as to how we apply that clause and whether the 1972 Act should be the only Act which is to be covered by Clause 18. In this, I fully recognise the reasoning behind the approval which your Lordships gave to the amendment on Report.
The aim in doing so was quite rightly to make the clause as specific and clear as possible, an aim which is wholeheartedly one which one could support. But, as I have already said, I recognise the concerns expressed by noble Lords that Clause 18 should make more specific reference to the European Communities Act 1972. When we debated this on Report, I made it clear that the reason we could not accept the amendment was because we were of the firm belief that a number of other Acts of Parliament also give effect to directly effective and directly applicable European Union law independently of the 1972 Act. Therefore, to accept a provision that referenced the 1972 Act alone would be to accept a change in the existing legal position, which could go beyond what we had always intended.
Although the European Communities Act 1972 is the principal means by which directly effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in the United Kingdom, the amendment agreed by your Lordships’ House could have created a significant risk that the courts might interpret the clause as restricting the ability of the other Acts of Parliament to incorporate directly applicable or directly effective EU law into our United Kingdom law.
The amendment accepted by your Lordships’ House also removed the phrase, “It is only” from the clause. This wording is intended to make it explicit that it is only by virtue of Acts of Parliament that directly effective and directly applicable EU law takes effect in the United Kingdom. Removing this reference leaves open the possibility of arguments to be made that directly effective and directly applicable EU law could enter into United Kingdom law by other means, which undermines the very rationale behind the clause.
Nevertheless, we have reflected on the amendment and the Government have demonstrated already that we wish to listen to arguments put forward by noble Lords. When there are grounds for a change to be made, we are prepared to make the change. In doing so, I wish to put on record our gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, with whom we have discussed in depth possible alternatives to his amendment to ensure that any amendment in lieu addresses his concerns sufficiently.
The Government subsequently proposed amendments to your Lordships’ amendment in the other place, which we believe achieve these two objectives. These amendments are before us today. It may help your Lordships if I set out how the clause will read if these two amendments are added:
“Directly applicable or directly effective EU law (that is, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures referred to in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972) falls to be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom only by virtue of that Act or where it is required to be recognised and available in law by virtue of any other Act”.
As I have indicated, we are particularly grateful for the engagement of my noble and learned friend and for his advice. My understanding is that he is content with the amendments to his original change.
I am also pleased to note that the other place voted overwhelmingly in favour of the government amendments by 485 votes to 22. These amendments were supported by the Opposition, with the shadow Minister for Europe calling them,
“a modest improvement to what was suggested by the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 98.]
I therefore beg to move that this House acknowledges the considerable support of the other House for these two amendments to the amendment that was proposed by this House. I ask your Lordships to support these amendments today. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, as the one who took the main argument on Clause 18 on Report with an amendment which was carried by quite a reasonable majority in your Lordships’ House, I am happy to assure your Lordships that this debate need not be anything like as long as the previous one because I am entirely happy with the proposed amendments and the resulting Clause 18.
The amendments restrict the matter to directly applicable and directly effective EU law. We are not concerned with other Acts which introduce EU law directly—for example, where it uses a particular provision of EU law to make law in this country. We do not need to concern ourselves with that. Originally, in an attempt to meet with the Government, I drafted an amendment which covered that as well as this. But I understand that it is now agreed that we just need to deal with directly effective and directly applicable EU law.
I am not 110 per cent convinced that there are other Acts which do this but, using the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Flight of the belt and braces, there is no harm in adding this because the 1972 Act is now specifically referred to. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the key to this aspect of EU law in this country. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments and my gratitude to the Government for their acceptance of the principle of the amendment which was accepted here, and for defending me from various allegations that were made in the other place about my motivation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his work on the previous amendment Will the Minister confirm the Explanatory Notes that were made when the original Clause 18 was put forward and confirm that the Government stand by these Explanatory Notes now? For the avoidance of all misunderstanding, the Printed Paper Office handed to me yesterday a copy of the Explanatory Notes. I shall make two references. My first is:
“This clause does not alter the existing relationship between EU law and UK domestic law; in particular, the principle of the primacy of EU law. The principle of the primacy of EU law was established in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice before the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities”.
The second reference is:
“Thus this clause is declaratory of the existing legal position. The rights and obligations assumed by the UK on becoming a member of the EU remain intact. Similarly, it does not alter the competences of the devolved legislatures or the functions of the Ministers in the devolved administrations as conferred by the relevant UK Act of Parliament”.
It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm that those Explanatory Notes, only as Explanatory Notes, remain as they were originally applied to a different Clause 18 from the one that this House is about to accept.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the support that has been given to these amendments. With regard to the Explanatory Notes, I can confirm to the noble Lord and the House that, as is customary, the Government will review the Explanatory Notes in their entirety. The notes on this clause will be considered as part of the exercise and we expect that there will have to be some consequential change to reflect the new wording of the clause. But that apart we have reviewed the Explanatory Notes in the light of proposed changes and consider that the notes, as drafted, accurately reflect the purpose and effect of Clause 18. I hope that that gives the reassurance that the noble Lord is seeking. In the belt-and-braces spirit which my noble and learned friend mentioned, I hope that the House will support these amendments.