Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

With Britain now an outlier—40th out of 43 OECD countries on paid parental leave—I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to Amendment 76. It simply calls for a proper review of the current situation, and for the Government to bring back proposals to Parliament to modernise Britain’s family leave policies, encourage and support the role of fathers in family life, encourage more career progression for women, and create more positive workplace cultures that support Britain’s long-term economic success.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139, which I have signed, but all the amendments in this group have real value.

In my relatively long life, in which I have argued endlessly for human rights, I think there can be only one or two times when I have stood up and argued for men’s rights, because I feel they have plenty of them and they do their own arguing. But, of course, this is a human rights issue. It is not just men’s rights; it is women’s rights as well, because the mothers will benefit if the fathers have parental leave.

Statutory paternity leave does not support families only in their first weeks; it helps rebalance society by moving away from a statutory parental leave system, which sends a strong message that parenting is a woman’s job and that men should keep working and stay out of the home. That idea is not just present in the legislation; it is embedded and deeply rooted in many people’s prejudices. Maternity leave is already a very hard-fought and essential right, but the imbalance between maternity and paternity leave is structurally embedding gender differences that do not benefit society.

This legislation can set young families up for a stronger start by ensuring that new fathers have plenty of paid time off work in those early weeks and months that are so crucial to a child’s development. I hope the Prime Minister was listening to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and that he will perhaps urge this House to adopt at least some of these amendments.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendments 127 and 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I rise as one of, I think, only two fathers in this debate so far and, as it happens, a recent grandfather. I thought it would be helpful to have a little bit of balance in a discussion on a group of amendments which is about what appears to be an imbalance in the respective roles of fathers and mothers.

It seems to me that there are three key reasons to act, rather than to think and debate and dance on the head of an ever-smaller pin. The first is the early years argument. I, together with other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, will be arguing the case for early years being included and very deeply thought about in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Education yesterday said that early years was her number one priority. It is inarguable that changing our approach to paternity pay and giving fathers the opportunity to have a much greater presence in the lives of their children in the early years—and also, very importantly, in support of their partner or spouse, particularly if she is working or is attempting to work—is frankly a no-brainer. In that context, that is a very good first reason.

The second reason is that the economic arguments for this are also very strong. The report by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, which came out only three weeks ago, and which was mentioned by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is fairly convincing. It says:

“Building on the evidence from other countries on the impact of paternity leave, the”


Centre for Progressive Policy—one would imagine that His Majesty’s Government would be in favour of an institute with a name like that—

“has modelled the economic costs and benefits of more generous paternity leave options. This novel model was built to help policy-makers understand the labour market effects – and associated economic and tax costs – of varying paternity leave terms in the UK”.

Its conclusions were very simple:

“The modelling shows a positive economy-wide effect of £2.68 billion, driven by the gains achieved when more women move into work and work more hours”.


The second bullet point is particularly apposite to the Government’s aims and what they are trying to achieve with the Bill:

“The modelling also shows that the increase in labour market outputs for this policy option is mainly driven by those at the bottom and middle of the labour market”.


That is a policy outcome you would think was very close to the Government’s heart.

Turning to the third and final reason, for 31 years I was a professional headhunter and, as a headhunter, you become relatively expert in what I might call the psychology of attraction and repulsion—what attracts people to particular types of employment or employer, and what detracts from that degree of attraction. There is increasing evidence to show that companies that are thoughtful, progressive and transparent about the offering they are making to both fathers and mothers stand a much better chance in this labour market of attracting people of real talent who have many choices they could follow up on. Also, relating back to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in a previous group, an important issue is that many individuals have a degree of trepidation about working for potential employers because they are uncertain of the working environment and how it might impact on their ability to play a full part in family life.

For those three key reasons, I support not only having a long hard look at paternity leave—as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said, frankly, we have been looking at it for longer than is either necessary or good for us—but, for the good of families and children, just getting on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have had confirmation from my side that the usual channels have agreed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his explanation.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Stop groaning.

Normally, if today’s list says, “at a convenient time”, that means at the end of a group surely.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

As I said, I understand that this is unusual, but it is in no way unprecedented. We have broken in the middle of a group before. It is not ideal, but we are where we are. I think it is in the best interests of the Committee, especially as it has been agreed through the usual channels, to hear from both Front Benches and any other Back-Benchers on this group in good time, and to hear, in the meantime, a repeat of the Statement from the Minister, so that everybody gets the best of all worlds. I know this is not usual practice, and we will endeavour not to do it on future Committee days.

Steel Industry

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would love to support the Government wholeheartedly on this Bill. From wind turbines to trains, steel will be needed for the transition to a green economy. However, this Bill contains huge powers for the Secretary of State and no sunset clauses. That is always going to be a source of problems.

I am worried that this is the same old story of taxpayer money paying for private profits and private sector failure. We have seen it with the water industry, where bill payers are taking the hit for billions of pounds in share dividend payments, and a third of my own water bill goes on paying debt. We saw it with the steel mill in Port Talbot, which was a missed opportunity that still grieves many people in Wales. We saw it with the collapse of Carillion, the private sector company that existed on public sector contracts. It paid out higher and higher dividends for 16 years. The owners fleeced it and left the pension fund half a billion pounds short—and, of course, cost the taxpayer £148 million.

Instead of the Government doing the obvious thing and taking over these failing companies, they should be bringing them into public ownership so that we can run them better and bring down bills. We keep throwing bill payers’ money at them and expecting a different result. No Government should allow key infrastructure to fall into foreign private investors’ hands in the first place; the minute it is not profitable, they pull out, with no recourse.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What is the Government’s model for ownership? If we put £500 million into keeping this plant going, what are we getting back? Are we getting shares in the company? Are we getting worker representatives put on to the board? Are we getting guarantees that the steel plant will be handed over to the public sector?

The Minister said in her opening remarks that all options are under review, yet one constantly gets the feeling that, for this Labour Government, nationalisation is something that spooks them quite badly. I would like to know if nationalisation is one of the options under review.

What is the timetable for shifting the Scunthorpe blast furnaces from coal to green hydrogen? We have an increasing number of days when our wind farms and solar panels are producing more renewable energy than the national grid needs. Instead of closing things down on those days—when renewables cost us nothing—why do we not use that free energy to produce hydrogen?

We must not leave the future of steel communities and steel-workers to the whims of multinational companies or bullies in the White House. These communities deserve better. Green steel in public ownership is the way to ensure that these communities not only survive but thrive into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord—he was speaking more quickly than I can write. I will endeavour to respond to the points that I have not been able to respond to so far.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down again, I made a specific point about whether nationalisation was one of the options on the table under review.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I make it clear that nothing is off the table. All options will be considered. I have also made it clear that this Bill is not about nationalising steel. If we need to take any further steps, we will obviously have to come back to the House with further proposals.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I welcome our four new colleagues after their excellent speeches, and I look forward to their future contributions.

Obviously, I agree with everything my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle said earlier. Surprisingly enough, we support this Bill in its general purpose, because we like that it is making fairness at work a priority. Well done to the trade unions for making sure this never slipped off the public agenda.

At the moment, we have a divided and very unequal society, and the Bill will help to restore a bit of balance in the workspace. Without that balance in power, we will forever have working-class people going to food banks and claiming universal credit because their paid work does not give them a living wage or job security.

We have a two-tier economy. The rich have been getting richer much faster, while the rest of us are stuck or going backwards. These two facts are obviously linked. Last year, the collective wealth of the UK’s small band of billionaires increased by about £35 million a day. Meanwhile, according to the IFS, the past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations.

Like many, I was appalled by the Spring Statement. It means that the situation I just described will get much worse. We will support the changes that Labour are putting forward, but it is nowhere near enough to really change things and make the majority of people better off.

In your Lordships’ House, we all have the duty to fill the gaps in the Bill to make it work for everyone in society, but especially the poorest. To do that, we have to end the rip-off by privatised services, such as the water industry and energy suppliers. We need rent controls and more social housing. We need a wealth tax and a more equal society.

One of our amendments, for example, will be to introduce a maximum 10:1 pay ratio, so that no worker will see their CEO getting paid more in a day than they do in an entire year—the point being, you can pay your CEO whatever you like, as long as the cleaner gets 10% of that. Plus, if we want more productivity in this country then staff must be valued. If we want to lower the tax burden, we must end the corruption that comes with privatised procurement contracts and services. Of course, we have to protect whistleblowers and SMEs.

A surprising amount of this Bill could have been taken straight from the Green Party election manifesto—loads of very common-sense ideas. I congratulate the Labour Party on casting an eye over what we said—for example, a fair deal for those working in adult social care, enhanced rights from day one, quality auditing, and sick pay.

The Employment Rights Bill could turn the tide on the undermining of employment rights that has taken place since the 1980s. It is time to recognise that stronger collective bargaining rights and better working conditions can be good for workers and businesses. But the Bill is not complete. The Government clearly need some help in further drafting, and this House is the perfect place to do that.

Whistleblowers

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right, but we have already noted the concerns about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We share his concern, because they are being used to silence whistleblowers and cover up sexual harassment and discrimination. I stress that there are existing legal limits to how NDAs can be used in an employment context, which means they are void and unenforceable in certain circumstances. The use of NDAs is not something we would support and, if there were ways of limiting it, we would do so.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it possible to ensure with legislation that any company that victimises whistleblowers or trade union members could be banned from taking any public sector work in future?

Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about education. We have already established that we need to keep the regulatory framework on these products under review, particularly with regard to new threats and hazards that might occur from them. That is why we have introduced the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will give the Government much more flexibility to look at these new products in future. But, yes, there is a huge job of education to be done about such products, and I thank the noble Baroness for her point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is it worth the Minister checking with advisers whether they have actually read Dr Fady’s research and are taking that into account?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hope that they have, because I asked them to look at it—so let us assume that they have done. This is a fast-moving area. We have a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and we will obviously look again at the science behind all this. With any new science coming forward, obviously we want to welcome any new evidence. We are very aware that we need to keep people safe. As I said originally, not only is it about the safety of the individual but if we allow antimicrobial resistance to develop, everybody will be affected—and it will have an adverse effect on all human beings.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his opening speech, which was very good, and also congratulate his committee on this report, which was extremely interesting. If Who Watches the Watchdogs? is to have an impact, we in your Lordships’ House have a responsibility to hold those watchdogs to account.

The report highlights a lot of challenges, but the key challenge for the new Government is to ensure that real change actually happens. It is very easy—well, perhaps not easy—to produce a report, and we produce reports and they are then often ignored. As the Institute for Government says about the infected blood scandal:

“Past inquiries, including the high-profile Mid Staffs inquiry, have put forward similar recommendations on culture, candour and patient safety. These have not, however, resulted in change.”


We have 90 watchdogs, a library full of regulations, and all supported by some very high-level civil servants, probably drawn from our best public schools. It is a puzzle as to why we have had Grenfell, infected blood, sub-postmaster prosecutions, Hillsborough and the PPE contract scandals. It seems that here in this country, ordinary people can die but those responsible never get jail time. Ordinary people can lose everything but will have to wait decades for compensation, while the CEOs enjoy bonus payments and retirement cheques, and never have to worry about paying any money back. It seems that ordinary people take pay cuts for years but the profits for energy companies stay excessively high. Why do the shareholders of water companies get billions in dividends while those of us paying the bills pay the interest on their debts?

If noble Lords want to know why Britain has more billionaires than ever before but collapsing public services, it is because many modern fortunes have been built on regulatory capture, privatised services, and a system of corruption designed to separate taxpayers and bill payers from their money.

I was shocked to discover today that water companies have a duty to not pay shareholder dividends if that stops them delivering improvements and doing their jobs. What has Ofwat being doing for the last few decades? Why do this Government think that this is going to suddenly change if they leave Ofwat in charge?

This report examines the many and varied reasons why watchdogs are failing, but I want to focus on two that the proposed watchdog of the watchdogs is seeking to address. First, there is regulatory capture. The water industry is riven with revolving doors, as Ofwat is joined by water company bosses and water companies co-opt ex-Ofwat chiefs. The deals are arranged between an overstretched Environment Agency and water companies to keep the industry solvent. Is the Environment Agency captured by business interests rather than doing its job to protect the environment?

This weekend, I visited Lake Windermere to see the well-publicised problem of pollution there, and I heard some distressing reports. On the August bank holiday in 2022—when, as you can imagine, a lot of holidaymakers were making their way to Lake Windermere—around the lake, six miles of blue-green algae were clearly visible in the north basin. World Health Organization limits were breached, yet the Environment Agency issued no warning because of “reputational risk”. On 15 May 2024, United Utilities spilled 10 million litres of untreated sewage into the lake in an eight-hour period. Again, the Environment Agency response was inadequate.

I argue that within the definition of “national park” there should be a high standard for the water in that park, which does not happen at the moment, and that should prevent sewage dumps and other pollution. Lake Windermere could be a pilot for that idea.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report points out the problem that successive Governments have failed. It seems that the cutting of red tape was done with a carelessness that is absolutely incredible. Regulations can be influenced by the power of money. Private developers accounted for around a third of donations to the Conservative Party for about a decade, and lobbying by developers and the construction industry undoubtedly played a part in the shameful Grenfell cladding scandal and the deaths of residents.

I say to the Minister opposite and to the new Government: please listen to other voices. If you hold a meeting with the water companies, meet Feargal Sharkey to get a counterview. If you meet Post Office bosses to discuss compensation for sub-postmasters, please also meet Mr Bates. If you get a Civil Service briefing on a scandal such as infected blood, personally check what the victims have to say. You have to listen to other voices. It will not make for an easier life but it will make for wiser decisions.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this scandal is rightly recognised as one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in the history of the English legal system. It seems so obvious now because so much has been reported, but for years hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were labelled as dishonest and convicted of dishonesty offences when they were telling the truth. One of the most fundamental elements of our justice system is that it is supposed to ensure that innocent people are found innocent because, if innocent people are at risk of being found guilty, trust in our justice system will disappear. In that light, exceptional steps are needed to put these injustices right, and although the Bill proposes a novel and controversial constitutional innovation, it is being done in aid of the powerless against the powerful and therefore, despite quite strong misgivings, I feel it is justified.

To talk about this Bill setting a precedent is to overgeneralise the circumstances of the Horizon scandal. We are not talking about overturning one or two questionable cases: we are talking about rectifying what has been revealed as an industrial enterprise to maliciously prosecute hundreds of innocent people. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made the point about how all should be exonerated. That is absolutely right; it is not enough to create, again, two tiers of those people who were so badly treated. If such a wholescale injustice does take place again, victims and the wider public can be assured that Parliament will intervene on behalf of the powerless against the powerful to secure justice, but let us all hope this is the first and last time that this unprecedented legislation is ever justified.

There is a grey cloud hanging over this Bill: to have real justice, Fujitsu’s role should be thoroughly investigated and prosecutions should start. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is wrong to wait until the end of the inquiry, because we already know that Fujitsu was guilty of many infractions. It was aware of the problems from the start. It was aware of its employees having remote access and, in 2009, Computer Weekly made it aware of the link between the glitches in the Horizon system and the prosecution of sub-postmasters. The chief executive of Fujitsu at the time, Roger Gilbert, said that Computer Weekly was not a publication to which he subscribed, so he clearly could not know anything about it. His press office was scandalously lax.

Fujitsu is still a major government contractor which gives money to the Conservative Party. It has numerous other government contracts and, for ideological reasons, the Government have been outsourcing all their IT expertise—exactly as the Post Office does. The next Government need to reverse this process and take that expertise back in house, or at least employ enough in-house expertise to know when a company is getting it wrong, hiding the truth or providing a service that is a complete liability and security risk. If you let major corporations run your Government, taxpayers will be ripped off and find that they are paying out millions when things go wrong.

I have two final points. First, Fujitsu should be in the dock and prosecutions should already have begun. Secondly, Fujitsu should pay the costs back to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, not us taxpayers.

Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

This statutory instrument, despite the very expert way that it has been presented by the Minister, I believe could seriously inhibit the regulation of the water industry. I cannot help but echo a number of remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell; they are worth repeating.

Unfortunately, under current parliamentary procedures, it is not possible in either House of Parliament to amend secondary legislation. Having considered this and other similar issues, I urge both the Government and the Opposition to consider whether a better way cannot be found for Parliament to improve secondary legislation in the way that so often happens with primary legislation.

With regard to the order, I shall comment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, only on the inclusion of Ofwat, the water regulator, in the scope of the order and the effect the order will have on the way that Ofwat operates as the financial regulator of the water companies. As everyone in this House knows, there is wide public concern about the continuing voluminous discharges of sewage into our rivers and on to our beaches. There have been many calls for tighter regulation. Even the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pledges in its Plan for Water—which was published only a year ago, as has been mentioned—among other laudable objectives,

“tighter regulation, and more effective enforcement”.

However, this order, coming from a different department of state, proposes lighter regulation and less enforcement. The Minister continues to deny that, but I must quote directly from the draft statutory guidance, which says on page 26 that

“certain enforcement actions … can be particularly damaging to the growth. These include, for example … financial sanctions; and publicity … that harms public confidence”.

I suggest to the Minister that the failure to fine water companies and publicise gross discharges of sewage is far more likely to harm public confidence in the system of regulation of water company monopolies. We have to admit—again, despite the Minister’s enthusiastic proposal—that the order will cause Ofwat to hesitate before fining companies or taking enforcement action, for fear of being accused of limiting economic growth.

I have also read the impact assessment, published on 9 January and signed by the responsible Minister. Unfortunately, I could not read the signature, so I do not know who it was. Ah, it was the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—I am so sorry, it was signed by our Minister in the Lords. Again, I feel I have to quote from it. It says that

“the Gross Value Added … of the water sector has shown little long-run growth”.

I am sorry to say I think that phrase sums up how the Department for Business and Trade considers the water industry. It clearly does not believe that the water industry can generate economic value for the country, but the water industry can and should contribute to an improvement in the environment that we will pass on to our children and our grandchildren—and that has value, even if it cannot be measured by the Department for Business and Trade.

It is certainly the case that most businesses and the public at large want and expect a plentiful supply of clean water, fewer leaks from pipes and a huge reduction in discharges of sewage into our waterways. There is a strong argument, which in a sense the Minister has already deployed, and I am sure will continue to deploy, that less regulation will normally produce economic growth. That may indeed be true for many sectors of the economy, but a monopoly industry where there is no competition, and which is causing so much damage to the environment, needs more regulation and enforcement, not less. So I ask the Minister to discuss with his Secretary of State whether the order really should apply to Ofwat along with the other regulatory bodies within scope of the order. My conclusion is that this order as drafted really could further damage an already degraded aquatic environment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I speak at quite a lot of sewage rallies and in sewage debates and I always give him credit for leading the charge against the Government’s laissez-faire attitude to sewage. There is usually a slightly stunned silence that I am congratulating a Duke—but that is life.

We heard some very fine words in the opening statement about the environmental considerations not being affected and so on. I am really sorry, but it is nonsense. If you have growth, you are going to have environmental devastation. It is automatic; it happens everywhere. At the moment, we have torrents of sewage pouring into our rivers, on to our coastlines and into our chalk streams. But, instead of stopping it, this proposal aims to increase it; and instead of giving Ofwat tougher powers to regulate the water industry and turn off the tap of CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends, Ofwat is now being told that economic growth is more important than clean water.

Whenever this Government do anything, I always ask, “Who benefits?” Who benefits here, of course, are Conservative Party donors and the economic growth they are going to experience at our expense and, in this case, developers who provided almost one-third of Conservative Party funds for the previous decade. What the Government mean by “economic growth” is the ability of developers to build cheap, sell high and connect up a lot of new houses to sewerage systems that cannot even cope with existing demand without emptying the excess into our local rivers and streams.

The only way to ensure that new houses are connected to a modern, effective sewerage system is to have public ownership of water companies. The only way to ensure that our water bills are being used to build local sewers rather than offshore bank accounts is to have people in charge who work for the public good and not for private greed.

By asking Ofwat to consider economic growth, the Government are not asking it to make a judgment on whether that growth is desirable, yet a growth in pollution that requires millions to be spent on clearing it up is classed as economic growth. More money spent on medicines that fight off gastric diseases from polluted water is economic growth, as is money repeatedly spent on restocking the fish populations of rivers. Are we really saying to Ofwat that growth at any cost to the health of humans and nature is a desirable thing that it should promote?

Last year, this House defeated the Government’s attempt to allow developers to build new homes that would have added pollution to some of the most sensitive waterways in this country. From the Norfolk Broads to Devon, the Government hoped to let developers pass on the clean-up costs for pollution to local people paying their water bills. We in your Lordships’ House stopped them. I would have liked us to do the same today, but clearly it is not going to happen.

I know that I will be on the Opposition Benches pestering the next Government to change these rules back. It will not take legislation; it is something a Minister can do and I will expect them to do it. Back in 2021, when the Government stripped out the last of our amendments on stopping sewage in the Environment Bill, without timetables and targets, I said, Cassandra-like:

“This will come to haunt MPs”.—[Official Report, 9/11/21; col. 1161.]


As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned earlier, this piece of legislation is a gift to the three opposition parties. At the rally I was at yesterday, all three opposition parties had a very sympathetic hearing, but, I am afraid, the Conservative MP had a very tough time, even though she was clearly very concerned about the issue. This Bill is a vote loser and the Government should remember that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order. I assume that one of the objectives it to try to bring some rationality to the different range of regulatory functions that exist between the different regulators. That is perhaps a laudable objective. But it is a missed opportunity in this case, as nothing is said in this order—nor has the Minister indicated that he would like to see this—about the regulators collectively trying to do what they can to ensure that the industries for which they are responsible operate so as to be resilient and able to deal with a variety of shocks. I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

This is not just about environmental sustainability, although that is one element of it. It is about their ability as industries to respond to what may befall them. At a time of heightened international crisis—I appreciate that most noble Lords are here to discuss precisely that—it is extraordinary that the Government are not taking the opportunity to use the regulatory mechanisms to try to improve the ability of our critical national infrastructure to be resilient and to respond. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why the opportunity has not been taken to extend the remit to ensure that there is a broader definition—one not just about economic growth but promoting resilience. This has, for example, been taken on board by the UK Regulators Network as one of its longer-term strategic aims.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Racism

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade will be giving a detailed Statement in the other place on this in about half an hour’s time, where she will categorically refute the allegations made by Henry Staunton—with evidence that we will put in the House of Commons Library to demonstrate that that was absolutely not the case. It does not match the facts. The fact of the matter is that we have compensated 64% of all the postmasters already and in the HSS scheme 100% already had offers in Henry Staunton’s time—so the facts do not match the article.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, has made me question whether or not misogyny and sexism played a role in the sentencing of the Asian sub-postmasters. Is that being looked into as well?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. As I said, these are all issues that will be looked at. Sir Wyn Williams has complete authority to look into all these matters and he will be guided by the public interest—where this is clearly in the public interest—and also by the advisory committee, with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and Mr Bates et cetera.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this Bill is welcome because we needed to see some action from the Government. It is very good, but of course there are a lot of questions that remain to be answered. I am curious about how many of these will get an answer over the next few years.

Where did the sub-postmasters’ money go? Did it pay for the bonuses of those who prosecuted them? Did Fujitsu ever get fined or even suffer any consequences for the failures of the Horizon system? Is it going to suffer in the future? At the moment, the taxpayer is covering the cost of the government redress scheme, but when do we get some of that money back from the people who made a profit or claimed a bonus as a result of destroying the lives of thousands of sub-postmasters?

What are the lessons we should learn, not just from this horrendous injustice but from the common themes of numerous modern scandals? We have had Hillsborough, which turned victims into pariahs as the establishment closed ranks. There was the “spy cops” scandal, with its denial of systematic abuse and cover-up, and the institutional racism of the Windrush scandal, which has its echoes in the racial profiling of sub-postmasters. All these are examples of how the establishment closes ranks and blocks progress. There is no recognition of how our democracy is failing to deliver for ordinary people.

There are so many awful things about the scandal of how the Post Office treated its sub-postmasters: the lies and threats used to isolate people and make them feel alone; the vicious use of courts to silence complaints about a flawed computer system; a system of corporate bonuses designed to encourage malicious acts against innocent people; and, of course, legal teams and professionals who lost their moral compass. This is David versus Goliath: a Goliath that was a private corporation, backed by the state and able to destroy people’s lives one by one. At least 236 sub-postmasters were sent to prison for offences they did not commit. Many have died poor and some committed suicide. Over 3,000 had their names dragged through the mud.

It is absolutely incredible that the sub-postmasters have had the resilience to get together and win. I am in awe of their tenacity and their patience—except, of course, they have not won yet. In the last decade, they have been deceived and messed around with previous compensation schemes. Fujitsu remains a favoured government contractor. In fact, it has won nearly 200 public sector contracts worth nearly £7 billion. When the sub-postmasters are cleared and their names are removed from the criminal records database, guess who has the contract to do that? Fujitsu. Is it, perhaps, too big to fail? Is it considered irreplaceable, or are there other reasons for continuing to use it?

It was the Post Office that relentlessly persecuted the sub-postmasters, but Fujitsu provided the expert witnesses in court to declare that it was the “Fort Knox” of software. It effectively pointed the blame at the sub-postmasters and away from the company, yet it now acknowledges that there were bugs and errors right from the start. Why, then, has Fujitsu been involved in £4.9 billion of solo and joint public sector contracts after the December 2019 ruling, including £3.6 billion during Sunak’s time as Chancellor and now Prime Minister?

Is it the close ties with Conservative Party donors, such as Simon Blagden, who stepped down as non-executive director at Fujitsu UK in 2019? He was a man who, along with companies he is associated with, has donated £376,000 to the Tories since 2005. Or the 2019 donation by Fujitsu Services Ltd of £14,000—peanuts, really—or the £21,000 to the Conservatives to run the Blue Room at their conference in 2015?

I am now going to offer some solutions, because I do not like to criticise without coming up with something positive to say afterwards. I suggest that the Government now take three immediate steps. They should hand back donations from those linked with Fujitsu. That is a role for the Conservative Party. They should have a moratorium on Fujitsu public sector contracts until the public inquiry reports. There should be a pause in using Fujitsu until we understand exactly what it did. They should pay the redress money as soon as possible, but get back as much from Fujitsu as possible. I see no reason why the taxpayer should carry the burden of most of the redress money. I would really like to point out that there are more questions raised now than answered. It would look very good from the Government’s point of view if they could, perhaps, answer some of those questions before the public inquiry does.