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.