Death of a Member: Lord Judge

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Hendy

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, for me, Lord Judge was the personification of patriotism. I saw this in a particular sphere that nobody has touched on. For the last decade or so, he was the chairman of a group of people who make an annual award for responsible capitalism. He did that because he believed in the highest standards in all walks of life. The time that he gave to reading the submissions and guiding the judges was just remarkable. I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who is a recent addition to the judges, nodding. Goodness shone through everything that he did. We shall all be the richer for knowing him and the poorer for his passing.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of knowing Igor for just short of 40 years. We first met in that bitter industrial dispute, the miners’ strike of 1984 to 1985, in the raft of litigation: I was in one case for the National Union of Mineworkers, and he was for the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The bitterness between the two can be imagined. Out of court he was charm itself, such an easy man to deal with. We co-operated as barristers should, for the benefit of our clients and, of course, the court. But in court—my word—he was a lethal advocate, as has already been said and, indeed, as your Lordships know from his interventions in this House.

I also had the privilege of appearing before him several times in the Court of Appeal in some leading cases that time does not permit a discussion of. He was a wonderful judge: courteous, charming, attentive, concise and, of course, just—as one would expect. Before I met him in this House, I also had dealings with him in another context: I was one of the founders of an organisation called the Free Representation Unit, which arranges young barristers to represent people who would not otherwise be represented in employment tribunals, social security tribunals and so on. Igor was its patron and an ardent supporter. Those qualities demonstrated to me things that I saw so many times when he spoke in this House: his humanity, his empathy for those less fortunate than ourselves, and his respect for the rule of law. I am pleased to say that last night we had an event marking the 51st anniversary of the founding of the FRU and a minute’s silence for Igor. We will miss him, and I will miss him.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Cormack and Lord Hendy

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Blencathra would indeed go through in the way he suggests. I will be very brief. I am concerned entirely with the issue of pavement licences, and I raised these matters in Committee a week ago. When new constraints are imposed or new freedoms given—even if for only a very brief period, relatively speaking—it is important that we should know precisely where we stand. That is why I have said, in my Amendment 17, that the Secretary of State should have no discretion on whether he prescribes conditions: he must prescribe conditions. I have gone on to say, in my Amendment 18, that he must have regard for those who will be inconvenienced by these new freedoms and conditions, specifically people who are disabled physically or who are blind or partially sighted.

I am afraid I have not received the letter to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra alluded in his speech, and I therefore look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I agree with both my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that this is one occasion—there are few, but this is one—where it might be helpful to have an earlier ministerial intervention than normal.

I want to feel assured at the end of this debate that people who are physically disabled, blind or partially sighted are not going to be inconvenienced by the new freedom that has been granted to people to spill over on to the pavement. In earlier debates, we heard how very dangerous that can sometimes be. We must always have uppermost in our minds the proper protection of those who are not always able to protect themselves and who, perhaps unlike my noble friend Lord Blencathra, do not drive mini tanks fearlessly along the road or on pavements.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

I will speak to Amendment 4 and endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Hain said in his powerful speech in support of it. As he pointed out, the striking thing about this amendment is its modesty. All it requires is consultation of relevant trade unions and businesses over the granting of pavement licences. As was pointed out in Committee, for 70 years and three weeks since it ratified ILO Convention 98 on 30 June 1950, the United Kingdom has voluntarily assumed the obligation to encourage and promote collective bargaining. The United Kingdom fortified its commitment to collective bargaining when it ratified a similar obligation in Article 6 of the European Social Charter in 1972.

The need for collective bargaining, particularly at sectoral level, was brought home when we learned of the appalling conditions and pitiful rates of pay—often less than half the national minimum wage—in the sweatshops of the Leicester garment industry. We saw that need again in the agricultural sector, when an outbreak of Covid-19 among workers at a vegetable farm revealed the appalling living and working conditions among the workers there. We know that, in agriculture, conditions and pay are so bad that it was found necessary to fly pickers in from Romania earlier this season, since British workers, even faced with unemployment and the terrors of universal credit, were not prepared to put up with them.

The answer in these and other sectors was explained long ago in the other place by Sir Winston Churchill, who in 1909 introduced legislation to make sectoral collective bargaining mandatory. I will read three sentences from his speech that day:

“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions.”


He continued:

“where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.

He concluded by saying:

“where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]

Hence, the Trade Boards Act 1909 was introduced and passed.

My noble friend Lord Hain referred to Roosevelt and the New Deal. Part of that was the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933, which introduced sectoral collective bargaining widely in the United States. It is in these circumstances that I stress the modesty of the amendment my noble friend proposes today. There can be no sensible reason not to adopt it, and I commend it to the Minister.