Employment Rights Bill

Lord Monks Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing forward this important purpose clause amendment, which I must tell him—I know he is always surprised when I praise him—is a very cleverly worded amendment to which my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I were very happy to add our support.

I do not know why this Bill has had to be rushed through within 100 days. Given the significance of this legislation, surely it would have been better if the Government had committed themselves to ensuring thorough and proper scrutiny. However, we have seen the introduction of 160 amendments on Report in the House of Commons—amendments which, in many cases, received no or little meaningful examination.

Even more concerning is the fact that the Government have tabled 27 amendments for Committee in this House. We have received a letter from the Minister warning us that there are more amendments in the pipeline on fire and rehire, the fair work agency, employment Bill time limits, trade union reform and maritime employment. What on earth is going on? Why was not this Bill properly prepared? This has meant that the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred is virtually saying to the House of Lords, “Please, on behalf of all the employers—and, indeed, all the businesses in the UK—we rely on you in the House of Lords to scrutinise this Bill properly”. I just do not think that this is the right way to treat Parliament. We owe it to the legislative process and to the public we serve to ensure that our scrutiny is neither rushed nor compromised.

No doubt the Minister will argue that a purpose clause is completely unnecessary. However, we respectfully disagree, and not only for the reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital for the Bill clearly to articulate its overarching aims: not simply to modernise employment rights in name but to set out a clear ambition to create a fairer, more secure labour market; to encourage genuine co-operation between employers and workers; to protect rights and well-being in the workplace; to ensure proper standards for pay and conditions across sectors; and to guarantee robust enforcement of labour protections. I have to say that, without a purpose clause, this Bill risks being directionless and, worse, risks unintended consequences that neither workers nor businesses can possibly afford.

I think also—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will agree—that a purpose clause is particularly important where there are a large number of delegated powers to make regulations within it. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please give us the power to do whatever we would like to do whenever we would like to do it”. The committees of this House have, time and again, urged Governments to turn their back on these Henry VIII clauses and present Parliament with clear cases to amend primary law, not do it through secondary legislation.

Well, there is growing concern about this Bill, which is why the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors and, in particular, the Federation of Small Businesses, which between them represent thousands of businesses across the country, have published this open letter to the House of Lords, asking for urgent changes to the Bill. They did so because they are deeply concerned that, as drafted, the Bill will make it harder, not easier to create fair, secure and co-operative workplaces. They warn that the Bill will increase risk and uncertainty for businesses precisely at the moment when we need businesses to invest, to hire and support in particular those who are at the margins of the labour market.

I do not think that the substantive concerns of all the businesses quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have been listened to. I just hope that the Minister can respond when she winds up this debate. I look forward to the speeches from all sides of the House. I will not quote in detail from the letter, but it does remind me of the words of Milton Friedman. If I am ever to find myself quoting Milton Friedman, I suppose that this is the moment. He said:

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results”.


Well, fine phrases about modernising employment rights and updating legislation are no substitute for carefully considered, properly scrutinised measures that deliver real-world improvement. So that letter from all those businesses is not a warning but a plea to this House. It is a recognition that we as the revising Chamber have a unique and critical responsibility to ensure that this Bill works. They are not closing the door on the Government but offering, at the end of the letter, to work with us all and with Ministers to help improve legislation.

In conclusion, if we are to get all these amendments, can we hear from the Minister how many more amendments we are going to get and when? The Government Chief Whip is constantly referring us to the Companion. I have never quoted from the Companion before, but it has pretty severe words for a Government who choose to table amendments at the last moment, without proper notice. So could we hear from the Minister what further amendments are planned, when we will receive them, and which parts of the Bill will be fundamentally altered? Here we are, at the start of Committee, still not knowing what the Government are proposing.

In an unguarded moment, the Minister disclosed to me that she has an implementation plan, which I understood from her was in draft. This House ought to see the draft implementation plan. Why can we not see it? Perhaps we could help the Minister produce the final draft. We should not get an implementation plan half way through Committee. Could we hear from the Minister on when we will see the implementation plan? A lot of businesses up and down the length and breadth of this country are totally uncertain about what the detail of this Bill will be. It is about time that we heard from the Minister about what the Bill seeks to do, what its purpose is and whether we can see it in its full form before we go any further with Committee.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and avoid the temptation to engage in a mini-debate across the whole width. So far, I feel I have been sitting in a Second Reading debate. I have given speeches in this House before, reflecting similar sentiments to those in this amendment about fairness and co-operation. These are the words used in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I gave them in the context of the debates on Conservative anti-union laws, which we have addressed in this House in my time. Sadly, no one on the Conservative Benches, except for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, paid any heed. The laws then proceeded to the statute book and the result was an imbalance in British employment law very much in favour of employers.

The Bill goes some way towards correcting that. Once it has been implemented, I hope we can look again at a system of mature collective bargaining of which we all can be proud. But first, we must replace the imbalance, and do so speedily, because it is glaring. Change is desperately needed; our labour market is characterised by high inequality—only two OECD countries have a bigger gap between rich and poor and between top earners and the very low-paid.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Monks Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the quartet of maiden speakers. I think they have all laid down a mark and people will look forward to their future contributions in this House.

I want to pitch my remarks at some of the messages coming from across the Chamber, almost asking “Why have we got this Bill in the first place when our wonderful flexible labour market is doing so well?” For me, a key justification of the Bill is deep concern about the UK’s relative position in the world. I will give a couple of OECD figures. Of 40 major economies, we are the most affected by rising inequality. In Europe, only Bulgaria and Lithuania fare worse. The gap between top and bottom earners in this country continues to soar to some eye-watering amounts, which are not always linked to corporate success. When it comes to worker participation in management decision-making, the OECD ranks us 26 out of 28 European countries. We are propped up only by Latvia and Estonia doing worse. We are not in the Premier League on these particular measures: more like the Vanarama.

If we had been outstanding economically, as the advocates of deregulated labour markets in the 1980s hoped, and if our productivity and investment record had been better, maybe you could justify high unemployment, high inequality and poor participation in management; perhaps it would have been a price worth paying. But the result has been that we are currently 20% poorer on average than workers in France or Germany, which have very different labour markets and a much greater degree of regulation.

I could go on making these depressing and unfavourable comparisons. If some people thought trade unions were overmighty subjects in the 1970s and 1980s—many people did and still do—and that unions could do with a good regular dollop of restrictive legislation loaded on them, I hope that today they will honestly acknowledge that British workers have payday very heavy price for what has happened since: the flexible labour market and its dark sides. I acknowledge that there are some upsides for some people in certain circumstances, but there are many dark sides for others who have very little choice: lower pay, lower protection, lower skills and poor productivity. This is not a happy picture for our nation and it is one the Government are determined to do something about. Mrs Thatcher did not expect the flexible labour market to produce some of these awkward facts, but they have to be faced by her successors.

The Bill strengthens the workers’ voice in the workplace, and I hope that that will echo, too, in boardrooms across the country. It needs to, if firms are to prosper as effective communities and teams. The Bill should boost job security, and it should reduce bad behaviour in a number of areas and tackle a number of abuses in the workplace at the present time. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—who we are happy to renew dialogue with after many years—to have another look at the biography of Stanley Baldwin to see what he did after the general strike to promote collective bargaining.

The Bill will put unions in a stronger position. I do not apologise for that: the balance tilts with this Bill if it goes through in its present form. It can help tackle inequality and improve, through that, productivity. We need the Bill, and we need it soon.

Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme

Lord Monks Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure for me to follow that excellent and inspiring speech by my noble friend and fellow Lancastrian—we are doing the northern bit at the moment, so I will join in with that. As my noble friend Lord Barber said, he comes from Ainsdale, an area with famous golf courses, where I think it can be said he had a misspent youth on many occasions—he is a very good golfer when his new knee permits it, by the way.

My noble friend’s appointment to this House, as he said, represents a reunion for both of us, because we have been friends and colleagues for about 50 years, with 30 of those spent together at the TUC. We rarely fell out, except perhaps about football from time to time, with his love of Everton, which I never understood. I was extremely pleased to see him succeed me all those years ago as TUC general secretary and for him then to flourish in that role and win this wide regard and respect, which is reflected in the different things he has done in his career. His determination, calmness and courtesy have long been hallmarks of his style, and I am sure they will be widely perceived within this House when noble Lords get to know him a little better. The range of tough jobs that he has done, and the people who have turned to him for help in tricky situations, is very impressive. We are looking at a stellar career that spans the private, public and voluntary sectors. That first speech was excellent, and the House can look forward to many more from my noble friend, as we can from my noble friend Lady Elliott, who gave a very warm speech, which would have gone down well with even the non-Sunderland supporters.

I turn to the subject of the day. The Horizon scandal is perhaps the worst British scandal in my lifetime. Here we had a respected and prestigious public body persecuting many innocent victims in what, ultimately, was a futile attempt at a cover-up. It went on for years, and it still goes on. People have lost their livelihoods, their savings and, in some cases, their freedom and their lives with the pressure that they had been put under—and it was all down to a dodgy, faulty computer system and an unwillingness to admit that a big mistake was made.

As I said, it is not over yet. Compensation schemes are in place but are being criticised for being too slow and, depressingly, Fujitsu is still dragging its feet on paying up—honeyed words are not enough. The point being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and others about the role of the auditors, Ernst & Young, in whitewashing the accounts of the Post Office reminded me of what happened in the wake of the Enron scandal—a scandal of a similar scale, in some respects—where it was the auditors who paid a very heavy price. Do noble Lords remember a firm called Arthur Andersen? Well, that was the end of it at that time. I am not saying that Ernst & Young is in that position, but it needs to come clean and make some contribution because, in my opinion, it shares the guilt for what has been going on.

Generally, I think we need to finish this saga and put it behind us. I want to ask the Minister a couple of things. Have the Government yet drawn any conclusions from the initial reaction to the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office and how this can be used to ensure that none of these terrible things that have been happening can happen again?

I recognise the Government’s contribution to delivering compensation. We all pay due tribute today to the doughty campaigners—Sir Alan Bates and his colleagues—as well as to our colleagues, such as the noble Lords Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who brought all this to light. I add my tribute to them, as this House has done many times, for the steadfast and determined role they played in seeing those enormous wrongs righted.

Those wrongs were a product of the damaged culture in the Post Office, with its emphasis on being defensive, its opposition to anybody who looked like a whistleblower, and its feeling of being beleaguered—that it was the victim rather the one causing victims. That culture was deep-rooted. I am interested in what can be done to make sure that is completely eradicated, because many of the people are still there. I guess that they will remain there because, individually, they have not done any criminal wrong. It is the corporate story that is so bad. What can be done to make sure that the culture is repaired and changed? The Post Office used to be loved and respected for its competence and openness but, at the moment, it is reviled by a significant section of our community.

Finally, can the Minister tell us how many convictions have been quashed and how many have received their due compensation, including in relation to Capture, the preliminary scheme which was around earlier than the Horizon system? Let us see a determined effort to close this shameful chapter in the history of the Post Office. It is long overdue. As a nation, we must put it behind us.