I understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, should be concerned about the uncertainty, but the one thing we know is that whoever buys this company will know perfectly well—it will be on the face of the Bill—that 10 per cent of the shares will be owned by the employees. That is definite, and similarly—I will be speaking later in subsequent amendments about how this might be handled—if a trust fund is established, the most appropriate way in which that would be contained within the new structure of the company would be to put an employee representing the trust directly on the board.
I see no great difficulty in drafting words to that effect, which should be considered in the light of previous experience. When we dealt with the campaign against NATS being formed back in 2001—I will also speak about that later—it would have been highly advantageous and beneficial had there been more on the face of the Bill than proved to be the case at that time. I am sure that would have convinced many of the employees about what was going to happen and the way things would go.
The success or failure of this venture, whoever buys it, is going to depend primarily on the employees’ contribution to the way the company will operate—and, yes, on capital too. That means that the new owners will have to manage the company in a way that, up to the last two years, we have not seen for a good many years within the Royal Mail. They will know broadly what they are taking on board, and I am sure that they would be very anxious to motivate and involve the employees as far as they can. Therefore, I do not see any great problem in finding a form of words to ensure that we have at least one representative.
Times are a-changing and I am surprised that there is a lack of radical approach, particularly from my noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches, on these issues. We have a recently commissioned report from my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch about the desperate need for more women non-executive directors on boards. There is also a desperate need to have the workforce better represented in many companies than we currently have, particularly people who are low paid by comparison with those on the board with substantial incomes accruing from companies. These changes will come as night follows day, so I hope that the Government will be bold and will be prepared to look at this proposal very favourably.
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 March 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c254-5 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:01:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726545
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726545
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726545