Employment Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.

I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.

My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Given that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I practised in employment tribunals, does he agree with me that there are now strong procedures by which employment tribunals can strike out vexatious claims without there being a full hearing? I had the pleasure, of course, of appearing against the noble Lord in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, I think it must be 40 years ago—it was a delight—but the mechanisms have developed over those decades and tribunals now do not hear vexatious claims. They strike them out before they get there.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I do not know if the noble Lord’s memory extends to which of us won on that occasion. It is true that there has been an improvement, but it would be a mistake to assume that those provisions would cover all the cases to which I drew attention in my remarks.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and indeed all noble Lords who have made such compelling arguments for the amendments in this group. I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to which I have added my name. I again refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer and as a forester.

The farming community needs help after the run of negative actions taken by this Government: the slashing of delinked payments, followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farms with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration. To that is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer national insurance contributions.

Farmers’ long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural and business property. It is a burden that farming businesses simply cannot afford and will lead to the sale and break-up of many of these on the death of a family member, with families also losing their homes and businesses as a result.

In the run-up to the introduction of the reduced reliefs in April 2026, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases. In Committee, I was grateful to the Minister, who is again in his place today, for his promise to speak to his ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS about keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business-owner suicides. I ask him again today: what has been the result of those discussions? How can the Government assess the impact of this measure on suicide rates if they simply rely on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data?

On Amendment 107, the arguments in favour of granting farming an exemption from these Bill provisions have been well made in Committee, and I will hit only the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations, as well as the weather variability in the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers have to look after their animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility in its engagement with seasonal and part-time or casual staff. There are penalties enough in weather unpredictability without introducing more through compensating staff for changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice.

Farming operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices and manufacturing, even after the first day or so. However, most farming workloads are solitary, with little oversight. We know whether a new employee has drilled a field correctly, looked after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around new trees without damaging the trees, or ensured that livestock is back in calf in the necessary window, only months after those operations are performed. Reducing probationary periods and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks, potentially from day one, is simply not acceptable or workable.

As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in Committee, this is not a Government who have a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is often evident, and I urge the House and the Government to listen to those of us who have that experience and to support this critical amendment. I hope to hear encouragement from the Minister that the Government are listening.

King’s Speech

Lord Howard of Lympne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with whom I had many jousts in the past. We often found —speaking for myself at least—that we agreed with each other far more extensively than we cared to admit, and that goes for much of what he said this afternoon.

I congratulate the Government on their election victory and the Minister on his appointment and maiden speech. I echo the warm words of tribute which have rightly been paid to him for his astonishing work on the rehabilitation of offenders—an objective which we all share. I wish the Government well. As my right honourable friend, the leader of the Opposition, whose premiership will I think be treated kindly by history, has said, their successes will be our successes; we all want our country to succeed. It is in that spirit that I intend to offer the Government, respectfully, some advice.

One of the most intractable challenges that the new Government faces is that posed by illegal immigration, and it is to that that I intend to devote my remarks. All we have seen so far is the Prime Minister’s commitment of £84 million to help what is often referred to as tackling the matter at source. I welcome that. It was under my leadership that the Conservative Party first committed to the 0.7% target, so I support the measure and hope that, together with other sources of development assistance, it helps to improve living conditions in some of those countries which are much less well off than we are. But we must be realistic: those countries will, whatever happens, remain for the foreseeable future much less well off than we are, so there will continue to be people who want a better life and who are prepared to take terrible risks to reach our country. Rebadging the Border Force will not stop them, but there is one way which would, and I speak from experience.

In 1995, as Home Secretary, I reached an agreement with France, under which we undertook to return to each other those who illegally entered one of our countries from the other. It worked, even though the number returned to France was, of course, far greater than the number returned to the UK. What, you may ask, did we give France in return? Nothing. We were able to reach this agreement because I persuaded my French opposite numbers that it was in their interest to come to it. Why? Because no French Government could take pride in the number of migrants congregating on their northern coastline or the numbers making their way through France to Calais to get to the UK. I suggested, and they agreed, that if it became clear that getting to Calais was no longer a way of getting into the UK, there would be no incentive for these migrants to come to France in the first place.

The agreement worked; it worked for the two remaining years of my time as Home Secretary, but it had a wrinkle: it applied to those who claimed asylum and to those who did not. It contained a provision that it would not apply to asylum seekers once the Dublin convention came into force. The Dublin convention, which came into force after I left office in 1997, provided that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the first European member state they reached, and if they did not, they would be returned to that member state. Here I was guilty of naivety: I thought the Dublin convention would work, but it did not. In 2018, for example, 1,215 asylum seekers were transferred into the UK but only 209 out of it, despite the fact there were far more cases where the first country they reached was not the UK. The Dublin convention did not preclude bilateral agreement, and one was reached between Germany and Demark. My Labour successors could have sought to revive the application of my agreement to asylum seekers once it became clear that the convention was not working, but they did not.

I respectfully suggest that the Government might look at this agreement again. As far as I know, it has never been revoked, but the arguments that persuaded my opposite numbers in 1995 are as valid and strong now as they were then. There is no reason why the original terms could not be restored. It seems quite likely that the new Prime Minister of France will be a socialist. I think it was Clement Attlee who coined the phrase, “Let left talk to left”, so there may well be an opportunity—to use a phrase currently much in vogue—for a reset in our relations with France on this issue. I commend it to the Government.