Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, we all share profound and deep sadness at the passing of the Her Majesty the Queen. We are indebted to her for her life of service, her dignity and her devotion to public duty. As we in this House treasure our personal memories, I remember my first meeting with Her late Majesty. I was 11 years old and I presented her with flowers in Westminster Abbey. Her warmth and smile on that day, to a little girl from Dorset in total awe of the occasion, is a memory I cherish.

Throughout her life, Her Majesty had profound love for and interest in the countryside and a deep commitment to farming communities across our great nation. As His Majesty the King was proclaimed today, our thoughts and prayers are with His Majesty, the Queen Consort and our beloved Royal Family. As a trustee of his countryside fund, I am privileged to see at first hand His Majesty the King’s deep commitment to our rural communities and farmers. His leadership on the natural environment and climate change have proved prescient. His vision of family farms, tenant farmers and rural communities fulfilling their role in creating a sustainable future for a thriving countryside that is there for everyone is without equal.

As we enter our Carolean age, we treasure Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy and welcome His Majesty Charles III’s reign with sovereign constancy. His Majesty, with his wisdom and passion, cares so deeply for those without a voice. We flourished under our Queen, and we will flourish under our King. God save the King.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to Her Majesty. My first memory is from when I was about five years old. There was no television in our house but a radio, and I can remember—probably on the Home Service, because I think there was nothing else—that there was silence and, every now and then, a rather sombre message: “The King has died”. My next memory of the Queen is of the coronation in 1953. I remember standing there with my elder sister, waving our flags; it was a great occasion. In my radical youth I was probably in favour of abolition, but as I got a bit older and thought about the alternatives, I abandoned that stance.

I met her twice. On one occasion I asked the equerry whether it would be okay to talk to her about apprenticeships and training. He said yes, of course it would. I would not go so far as to say that I was pleasantly surprised, but she was enthusiastic and understood the importance of training her staff. That was a good example of her attitude and approach.

I was a member of the Armed Forces pay review group, and we were returning from a visit to Iraq. For some reason the Queen’s plane was available and we were on it. We were being given first-class service by the steward, who was carrying his tray of canapés and delightful drinks. I asked him, “What’s it like when Her Majesty’s on board?” He said, “It is a bit tricky when six corgis are running up and down the gangway”. That struck me as an interesting situation.

I was employed in the GPO as a telecoms engineer—noble Lords may wonder what the connection is—and my boss at the time was the Postmaster-General, Tony Benn. He got it into his head that it would be a really good idea if he came up with a new stamp design that did not include the Queen’s head. Fortunately, the Queen had to approve every new issue of stamps, and I think I can say that when he met the Queen, she certainly was not amused—so that one did not get through.

I was struck by an article in the Times yesterday by Gerard Baker, a rather tough American writer. He concluded it by saying that we have lost a monarch but the world has lost a Queen, which I thought was a very nice tribute.

King Charles has a really hard act to follow, but I think we all agree that yesterday he made a very good start in both what he said and the way he said it. I have not always agreed with everything that King Charles has enthused about, shall we say, but one thing that gains my admiration—there is more than one—is the Prince’s Trust, which does such good work in getting young people into employment. I wish him every success for the future. Given the start he made yesterday, I am sure he will live up to that challenge.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I had the privilege of serving as an extra Lord in Waiting to Her late Majesty the Queen, since 1997, with particular responsibility for meeting and greeting Heads of State from Africa. I was also in South Africa in 1995 at the time of Her Majesty the Queen’s state visit at the invitation of President Nelson Mandela. She enjoyed a warm friendship with Nelson Mandela. Amusingly, they were on first name terms with each other from the time they first met.

She got the nickname in South Africa of “Motlalepula”, which means the African queen rainmaker, because her visit coincided with a long drought in Natal: literally the day that she arrived, the heavens opened and they had wonderful rainfall. She had fond memories of South Africa, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I was fortunate enough to have had a very close relationship with Nelson Mandela, otherwise known as Madiba, who held Her Majesty as well as Princess Diana in the highest esteem. Both Her Majesty and Madiba shared the same sense of duty, and both had a wicked sense of humour.

My last memory of Her late Majesty was that she made everyone feel at ease. When I first met her, I had an acute stutter and was at a loss for words as to how to greet her, but she immediately made me feel at ease. Her tireless devotion to others for 70 years, dealing with state and personal difficulties with calmness, dignity and diligence until her last day, was remarkable.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said yesterday that Her Majesty placed duty first, second and third; I totally agree. She was the glue that kept us all together, and she was the most remarkable example of soft power. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly said yesterday that she never put a foot wrong. It was remarkable how well briefed she was on every subject, as was her amazing memory for events gone by. Quite apart from her remarkable work as a monarch, as many noble Lords have mentioned, she had the distinction of being the founder and head of the modern Commonwealth, where she commanded enormous respect from all over the world. She was the most remarkable role model.

Our thoughts and prayers at this time go out to the members of the Royal Family. God save the King.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Friday 18th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the 45 contributions so far. When I have been out of the Chamber briefly, I have watched them on the screen. I regret that I have to disagree with, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I have come to respect and regard as a friend, as I do the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. We do not often disagree and I deeply respect their views and concerns. However, I have to say that they do not represent the entire disabled community. There are other views, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, drew to our attention. Therefore, I have to balance my feelings of friendship and concern with what I have just heard.

I make it absolutely clear that I support palliative care. It is a mark of our civilised society that we do not push people out into the snow in the winter and say, “Well, that’s your lot”. However, there are limitations to palliative care. The most reverend Primate, who, unfortunately, is not in his place, gave us a moving account of someone who was helped through the most difficult period of their life. However, that does not gainsay the right for people of sound mind to have the right to choose to end their suffering. I believe that having that choice is a fundamental right.

We have been reminded that the church is not absolutely solid in its conviction on this issue. Archbishop Tutu, the former Archbishop of Canterbury—the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey—and, more recently, the Bishop of Buckingham, have all said that they have changed their minds, and I can understand why.

We have heard very genuine concerns about whether this is the start of a slippery slope and about the position of vulnerable people. Of course, I share the concerns of everybody else in this Chamber. During my brief ministerial career, I learnt that there was no such thing as perfect legislation. However, that does not mean that the situation cannot change. We are not embarking on a voyage that no one else has tried before. Noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in her careful, forensic examination of what has happened in Oregon, have shown that this has not proved to be a slippery slope. The statistics may be different in different circumstances but they are there and this practice has taken place over a long period.

I do not claim to provide an answer to all the concerns, but I make a plea that we should not make sweeping allegations that cannot be substantiated and which, in many cases, unfortunately, are anecdotal. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but I winced a bit when she said that the Bill was within a whisker of promoting euthanasia. That does not help us to have the kind of debate that we should be having. I also have great respect for my noble friend Lord MacKenzie, but he said that the Bill would trample over the Hippocratic oath. I do not believe that it would. I do not believe that the vast majority of doctors and nursing practitioners in this country would see the Bill as a blank cheque, as someone described it. It will not transform the landscape. Those people will continue to maintain their position. I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer brought this legislation forward.

People have said that the current law is sufficient. However, that is not what the Supreme Court felt, or at least it felt that the matter was worthy of examination. I do not profess to have enough legal expertise to decide whether or not that is the case, but we have been invited to address this issue and we should do so.

I am glad that there seem to be a lot of signals that the Second Reading of the Bill will not be voted down, unlike what happened on the previous occasion on which we debated this issue, and that we will have the opportunity to address some genuine concerns that have been expressed here today. I look forward to that opportunity and thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for giving it to us.

Added Tribunals (Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal) Order 2013

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, it seems that after 13 years of improving the quality of the contract of employment, and I mean everything from holidays and maternity rights through to the quality of access to justice, we have been going backwards since 2010. A more unequal society is the same as a less just society; a society which protects the strong at the expense of the weak. Of course, this can all be reversed; we hope that it will be in a couple of years with the election of a Labour Government, and on this side of the House, that is obviously the constitutional remedy to which we look forward.

I will make another point about the culture within which these proposals keep coming forward, whether it comes from the Department for Business or the Ministry of Justice makes no difference. We have lost the culture of the department for employment where people understand what creates some sort of balance in the labour market. We are, after all, looking for a labour market in which the quality of employment and jobs go along with the quality of the contract of employment. One cannot have satisfying, quality work without this being looked at in a holistic fashion.

I take this opportunity to put on record that, despite the fact that the Minister personally has a great commitment to some of these matters, the Ministry of Justice is the wrong culture within which to have a sensible picture of where we need to be going so far as the quality of the contract of employment is concerned.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, my noble friends have made the key points, but I want to emphasise a couple of issues. The Government wanted to do something really positive and constructive, as my noble friend Lady Donaghy said, and they started to do it by enhancing the role of ACAS and encouraging mediation. We support that wholeheartedly. It is the right way forward. It is positive, it is constructive, it does not discriminate against people regardless of their income and it does not swing the pendulum towards employers, as I firmly believe the current proposals do.

As regards reducing the number of claims or the claims that the Government believe should not be taken, it is interesting that the statistics demonstrate that the number of cases is coming down in any event. My noble friend Lady Drake brings a wealth of experience of employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals. She pointed out that judges already have significant powers in dealing with vexatious claims, so that part of the problem could and should have been dealt with. In our view, this is an unfortunate piece of legislation that, as one of my noble friends said, does not reduce red tape. It adds complexity and tilts the balance against workers. I agree with my noble friends that this order ought to be withdrawn.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, many of whom I know have spoken from a wealth of experience of tribunals, ACAS and the trade union movement. It has been helpful to identify and address concerns. Doing so has enabled me to set on record why the Government have decided to introduce fees in the employment tribunal system and, crucially, what has been put in place to ensure that fees are not a barrier to those wanting to access the justice system.

In speaking to his amendment to the Motion on the fees order, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, expressed regret that its provisions do not effectively protect access to justice, that some claimants will be deterred from bringing claims and that the remission system is inadequate. Neither I nor my government colleagues accept those arguments. We believe that the mitigations we have put in place will properly protect access to justice for those seeking to bring claims. The remission scheme will ensure that those on low incomes can apply to have their fee reduced or waived entirely and, given the importance of the issues at stake, the Government believe it is unlikely that fees alone will deter those with a strong case bringing a claim. These factors, together with the power for the tribunal to order reimbursement of fees paid, will help to ensure that access to justice is maintained for those who wish to bring a claim.

As I have mentioned, we hope that fees will encourage potential claimants seriously to consider options to resolve disputes outside the tribunal system. From 2014, mandatory early conciliation will mean parties cannot bring a claim to the tribunal without first having sought a conciliated resolution via ACAS. Any decrease in claims after the introduction of fees does not mean that claims are being deterred. It is more likely that disputes are being resolved without the need to use the tribunal, which benefits everyone.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, raised a number of issues. He asked whether fees should be charged for someone seeking a small amount. All claimants, irrespective of appeal or claim type should make a contribution to the cost where they can afford to do so, and everyone should also think carefully about entering into litigation irrespective of the remedy sought. Claimants should bear the cost of fees where they make an allegation in a claim and fail to pursue it or where the employer is judged to have acted lawfully.

The noble Lord said that the employment tribunal is more expensive than the civil courts. The civil courts do not offer a reasonable comparator in this instance as they charge at up to five points in the court process and fees are set to recover the full cost. Civil courts process significantly higher volumes of claims and therefore have lower unit costs. In the civil courts, parties open themselves to much wider cost powers, so there are different issues to consider.

The noble Lord asked about the changes to the process for the enforcement of awards when fees are introduced. The enforcement of employment tribunal awards is fast-tracked through the civil courts. There are no plans to make any changes as part of the introduction of fees. However, separately the Government have commissioned new research covering England and Wales and Scotland, and the findings are due to be published next year.

The noble Lord asked whether there will be guidance for those paying fees. We will ensure that all users are clear on the obligation to pay fees or to apply for a remission. Existing HMCTS guidance for employment tribunals will be updated to highlight the stages at which fees are payable. There will be fees and remission leaflets to explain the fees payable, how to pay and where to apply for remission.

Loan Companies: Interest Rates

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox]

When the consumer credit review report comes out, we will know its findings, so I cannot comment on them for the moment. However, it is always the most vulnerable who we must worry about because they are the least likely to ask for help until it is too late. We will continue, as we would always continue, to make sure that the disadvantaged really are a priority for us.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, can the Minister advise the House on whether the Government have any plans for regulating commercial providers of debt management plans, which have never been regulated and under which consumers pay upfront fees and take longer to pay off their debts? Does the Minister agree that there is a real need for free and impartial debt advice such as that provided by the Consumer Credit Counselling Service?

[Baroness Wilcox]

We certainly agree that there should be free debt advice and we will continue to provide it. I think the noble Lord also asked about debt management companies. We are concerned about these. The Office of Fair Trading has recently taken action in this area and we are working with the industry itself on how we can resolve these issues. Good people in the industry do not want the bad people in it because they give them all a bad name.