Employment Rights Bill

Lord Prentis of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words. Unfortunately, it is the season of the year when I take various inhalers for hay fever and such like and the dust tends to gather in my throat when I am sitting for long periods, as I have been this afternoon.

I was just mentioning that this is a debate which has gone on for a long time. Between 1946 and 2016, members automatically became contributors to political funds unless they opted out. In 1984 the Conservative Government considered legislating to change to the opt-in model but settled for an agreement that the unions would increase awareness among members of their right to opt out.

In 2015 the Conservative Government introduced a Trade Union Bill that proposed to change the system so that both existing and new members would contribute to the political fund only if they explicitly opted to do so. The Labour Opposition argued that this change would have a negative impact on the size of union political funds, and consequently Labour Party funding. They argued that this should be done only in the context of broader party funding reform. They were successful in establishing a Select Committee to consider the issue and to find a solution in parallel with the Bill’s progress.

I was asked to chair the committee, and several other members of the committee remain Members of the House today. The committee concluded that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members, including existing members, could significantly reduce the number of union members participating in political funds. It also concluded that this would lead to a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party while leaving donations to other parties unaffected.

A majority—but not all—of the committee concluded that the proposed requirement to opt in should not apply to existing members unless it was part of a broader reform of party funding. However, the committee unanimously decided that the opt-in mechanism should apply to all new members. After further debate, the Conservative Government accepted compromise amendments that limited the opt-in mechanism to new members, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.

I acknowledge that there is no conclusive approach to determining whether opting in is better or worse than opting out. In some cases, opting out is deemed appropriate, such as in the case of workplace pensions, where the failure to opt in could result in future costs for government. However, evidence from various settings suggests that when it comes to making additional payments, more people will end up paying if they must opt out rather than opt in. The more cumbersome the administrative hurdles to opting out, the greater the likelihood an individual will not exercise their right to do so. Such administrative hurdles increase the likelihood that the outcome will not be in the best interests of the individual.

On balance, I prefer that we should ensure that people make informed decisions based on clear and transparent options. With most financial products—and decisions about allowing tech companies to use individuals’ data—there is a requirement to explicitly opt in. The concern is that allowing companies to require opt-out preys on people’s inertia. Furthermore, we have spent hours in this House debating the data Bill and the question of opting in or opting out of AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material. My own view is that requiring people to explicitly opt in reflects their preferences more accurately.

During a helpful conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful, she emphasised that this is not simply a return to the position pre 2016. However, my fear is that in substance that is indeed what it is. I would welcome clarification on some aspects of the Government’s proposals. Will it be a requirement that the union’s application form for members joining a union continues to include a statement to the effect that a member may choose to opt out of the political fund and that they will not suffer any detriment if they choose not to contribute? Will new members have the option of choosing to opt out before completing the application? Why do the Government wish to change the requirement that a member be reminded annually of the right to opt out? The new proposal is that they should be reminded only every 10 years. What is the Government’s justification for this change?

Is there any reason why it should not be possible to give an unbiased choice at the time of joining? There could be two questions—two boxes—and a requirement to tick one box. One might say, “I wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”, and the other, “I do not wish to contribute to the union’s political fund”. The application would not be complete without ticking one or the other—a practice that we see very often these days, particularly with online applications. Does the Minister anticipate that the proportion of new members contributing to political funds will be higher under this legislation than has been the experience under the present 2016 Act and, if so, by how much?

Finally, I say this to the Government in the friendliest terms I can muster: why are they running the risk that the next time there is a change of government there will be another reversal which results in something less favourable to Labour than the 2016 compromise? Another reversal might well introduce the opt-in system for all members, both new and existing; in other words, the proposal on the table before the 2016 compromise that caused all the trouble at that point.

I stress that I have no view on whether trade union members’ contributions to political funds are too high or too low. Having tried, with a small amount of success, to find a resolution to the issue in 2016, my only ambition in involving myself in this Bill is to secure a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds that can stand the test of time, as I hoped the 2016 compromise would. The purpose of my amendment is to oppose the move to an opt-out mechanism until we have more justification for such a change and greater clarity about some of the questions I have outlined.

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of the Employment Rights Bill unamended and declare an interest as I was general secretary of the UK’s largest union, UNISON, for over 20 years. It has over 1.3 million members; over 1 million of them women, mainly low paid. I have seen at first hand over those 20 years the good which our political funds can do. In my own union the political funds support our campaigns—campaigns to reform the social care sector, which we have talked about often in this place; campaigns for fairer pensions for women, for better rights for disabled workers and human rights in Northern Ireland—and, something I am particularly proud of, our anti-racism work.

Our political funds support projects to bring children from Asian and white communities together. They fund our work tackling racism as part of HOPE not hate, and our work with footballers on Show Racism the Red Card in schools and at football matches over the past 20 years. The fund is used to send films to every school on the horrors of the Holocaust. It is used for ground-breaking initiatives to build fairer and safer communities. What many do not realise is that, without using the resources of our political funds, it would be unlawful for trade unions to campaign politically on behalf of members in any pre-election period—not just Westminster elections but all elections. The slow drain of money from the political funds caused by the 2016 Act and arrangements is having a serious effect on the right that trade unions have had for more than 100 years: the right to campaign politically.

How political funds are used varies from union to union. Many unions have political funds that are not affiliated to any political party, such as the National Education Union, the NASUWT and PCS, to name just three. Only 13 of the 48 unions in the TUC are affiliated to the Labour Party. My own union is affiliated, but it always makes it transparently clear when a member joins that their political contribution goes either to the Labour Link or to the non-affiliated section of the fund known as the campaign fund. New members can choose to pay into one or the other or both—or, until 2016, they could opt out. There were no subscription traps. New members were not misled. There were no barriers to opting out, and the opting out arrangement, as has been said, operated for more than 60 years through Labour, Tory and coalition Administrations before the 2016 Act.

It is with this in mind that I reflected on the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in reaching a way forward in 2016. I thank him for that, but I do not think that his amendment today should be progressed. It proposes that the 2016 arrangements continue under any new legislation. I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment. Despite his good efforts, the 2016 arrangements have not proved a long-term solution for trade union political funds. They are gradually being drained of resources and, with that, so is the ability to campaign.

More to the point, in any democracy there will always be the threat that any incoming Government could put the clock back. There is always a very real possibility that we could get consistent ping-pong on many policies, not just on the political funds. Unfortunately, even if we leave things as they are, there is no guarantee that any change of government would not lead to another trade union Act more draconian than the 2016 Act. The possibility of consistent ping-pong in itself is not an argument for leaving things as they are; neither is it an argument for not returning to the principle of opting out, which operated for 60 years.

The Trade Union Act 2016 did what it intended to do. It deliberately placed considerable and costly burdens on trade unions, and it sought to reduce funding to the Labour Party. That was its purpose. But in doing that, it also compromised the ability of trade unions to provide a campaigning and political voice for working people in our country. That is why the Employment Rights Bill, unamended, is so important. That is why I ask noble Lords not to pursue the amendments to the political fund clauses of the Bill but to allow it to move forward unopposed.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Prentis of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her amendments, as I am rather confused by how this will improve the education system.

I speak as someone on the front line. As of today, my academy trust employs 717 non-teaching staff across our 18 schools. We provide high-quality benefits to our staff. We have to match the terms and conditions of the local authority, including a very generous pension, and we are proud to do so—but we go much further. For example, we offer a health scheme for all our teaching and non-teaching staff, which provides an online consultation with a GP and online access to prescriptions, so that they can get treatment far more quickly than through the NHS backlog, and we provide a dental scheme which gives access to one hygienist appointment a year, as well as theatre and retail discounts.

On top of that, we have been very assertive in pushing through apprenticeships for our non-teaching staff. We have put 69 staff through apprenticeships over the last couple of years, which is a pretty high percentage of the 700-odd staff we employ. We did that knowing full well that we would lose a lot of them as they became skilled and moved on to jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done.

How will this improve anything for teaching? It will add another layer of administration and costs, and more HR resource will have to be deployed to wade our way through these regulations. Listening to my noble friend Lady Barran, they sound extraordinarily impractical because, frankly, an IT support staff member in, say, Thetford, which is where we have our most westerly school, is in a very different market from anything in Cambridge. Indeed, what is an IT role? The role is changing almost monthly, as we try to create data lakes to access a large language model for our own teaching data. These things are undefined—you will have to create bands that are so wide as to be meaningless.

To the point made by my noble friend Lady Barran, we cannot afford to go higher and we cannot go lower, so what is the point of all this? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the proposed school support staff negotiating body, as set out in the Bill. Noble Lords may remember that such a body was established in 2010. All the things that have been said in the Chamber today on this issue were talked about prior to that. Unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The coalition came in and even though the arguments were dealt with, everything was set up and moving forward, and the school support staff negotiating body—which we had great hope in—had met once, the coalition’s first act was to abolish it.

Through the Employment Rights Bill, we can rectify something which was wrong. The new body referred to in the Bill is long overdue. It will work towards a number of goals for support staff, some of which have already been mentioned. It would give them a voice in the education debate, achieve fair pay, which is the law of this land, and create unified pay and conditions across the country—what is so wrong with that? Local government, which has been mentioned, negotiates on behalf of millions of local government workers who do different jobs in different communities, with different arrangements in place to meet the local conditions where the service is being provided. All that has been in place not for decades, but for a century. Look at our National Health Service. We all applaud joint working and the implementation of fair pay and conditions—fair pay for work of equal value— across the NHS and all the different disciplines it provides in our communities. Collective bargaining works well. Those bodies address and deal with any issues as they arise.

We are talking about a group of school staff who, for many years, have seen teachers have collective bargaining—which we obviously support. Other school staff have nothing; they are at the whim of the headmaster or headmistress, and of local conditions. Little is done on their behalf, which is why school support staff across the country welcome the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body.

The TUC is a voice for good. It is at the heart of the trade union movement and is respected by employers and governments alike. If there are differences or issues that need to be tackled, why not go to the heart of the trade union movement and ask for its advice and assistance? It has been doing it for nearly 100 years and doing it well. There is no reason whatsoever why it cannot be part of the arrangements for establishing the new body. I am proud of the work the TUC does.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was clear that the Secretary of State could consult whoever they liked, and I would not be surprised if that was the TUC. My point is, why is this being put into primary legislation when it is completely unneeded?

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.

The whole intention appears to be to limit the scope of any collective bargaining. It is as clear as day. Different forms of words can be come up with concerning who is involved, who should clear what, and so on. That delays things, and that is the intention of the amendments before us.

Noble Lords have to understand that the proposals legislate for the Secretary of State or their nominee to be involved in the negotiating body. I personally have no reservations about that. We want to talk to the people who have the power and the influence to make decisions that improve the service and teaching in our schools. This proposed new body is intended to improve schools and education. What better way of doing it than to bring people together, give them a voice, allow it to be heard and come to conclusions which are for the benefit of all?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate, and I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Coffey for their amendments in this group. We have had some very interesting real-life examples given by my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, and an important dimension from the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, to which I will return in a moment.

I am, however, pleased to speak in support of Amendment 151, introduced by my noble friend Lady Barran. This amendment highlights an essential but often underappreciated part of our school workforce: the support staff. That is where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds. Those support staff keep schools running smoothly every day. From teaching assistants to catering teams, their work is vital, and as my noble friend put it, they form the backbone of the whole system.

The Government’s Bill takes a step forward by proposing the creation of a school support staff negotiating body, and I make it clear that I believe that is a welcome move. However, the Bill’s current approach, with its push for a single set of national pay and conditions, risks overlooking the real differences which exist between schools, as my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton pointed out, especially between maintained schools and academies.

What this amendment does so well is to recognise the need for a flexible framework for academies, one that they must consider and may depart from only in exceptional circumstances. This respects academies’ independence while still promoting fairness and consistency.

We must of course remember that “support staff” is a broad term covering a wide range of roles and responsibilities. The needs of a small primary school and a large multi-academy trust are not at all the same, and any framework has to reflect that diversity. Like in most areas of the Bill, the Government have taken a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that I am concerned could create confusion and strain resources. Instead, a balanced framework such as the one my noble friend proposes offers a practical way to support staff fairly, without unnecessary bureaucracy.

My noble friend also raised an important point about the potential costs and bureaucratic complexity that come with establishing another negotiating body such as the school support staff negotiating body. This is not just about money but about the practical demands placed on schools and trusts, especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity.

Setting up and maintaining a new national negotiating framework involves significant resources: time, personnel and funding. Schools will need to engage with the school support staff negotiating body’s processes, potentially adapt to new systems for pay, terms and training, and ensure compliance with frameworks that may be complex and constantly evolving.

For large multi-academy trusts, this might be manageable, but for smaller schools—already stretched thin—it adds a layer of bureaucracy that can divert valuable time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation processes risk becoming slow and cumbersome, delaying important decisions on staff pay and conditions. This could lead to uncertainty and frustration among support staff and their employers alike.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her insightful remarks. She makes a compelling and important point: the Secretary of State is already required to consult the prescribed school support staff organisations, which represent the full spectrum of support staff voices, yet this amendment rightly challenges why the Trades Union Congress should be given a special, privileged position with an additional mandatory consultation in primary legislation that risks unnecessary delay, added bureaucracy and potential obstruction.

Although the TUC is of course a major trade union umbrella—many colleagues across the Chamber will remind us of its history—it does not have a monopoly on representing school support staff. Many staff organisations operate independently and effectively without TUC oversight. Therefore, by insisting on formal TUC consultations, we risk entrenching a narrow set of interests, potentially sidelining smaller or non-TUC affiliated groups that also deserve a seat at the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning, Lady Ritchie and Lady Coffey, for adding flesh to what we are discussing here today in these amendments.

I hope we all agree that the adult social care workforce plays a vital and often undervalued role in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society, as previous speakers have underlined. Care workers show remarkable dedication, compassion and professionalism in often challenging circumstances, yet the sector continues to face high turnover, inconsistent conditions and, as we have heard, limited opportunities for training and career progression. There is growing recognition that this must change. Supporting a stable, skilled and respected workforce is essential to delivering high-quality care and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system.

The provisions in Chapter 2, including the proposal for a social care negotiating body—that is the principle that we are discussing—are a response to that wider need for reform. They seek to introduce a more formal framework through which pay, conditions and progression can be discussed and agreed between trade unions and employers. The inclusion of statutory mechanisms for negotiation, as outlined in Clauses 37 and 44, reflects an effort to bring greater consistency and accountability to the way the workforce terms are determined. Clause 48, addressing agency workers, is a notable recognition of the diverse nature of employment in the sector and the need for fairness across the board.

It is the amendments we are discussing, not the wider situation of the country. These amendments have been brought forward to explore how these proposals might operate in practice, including the remit, independence and legal weight of any agreements. These are important questions and it is right that the House scrutinises how this framework would function and how it may be made most effective. I would welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the amendments.

While views will differ on the detail, the broader case for supporting and strengthening the adult social care workforce is widely accepted. The Bill forms one part—and only one part—of a longer-term process to address this challenge. Sustained attention to training, career development and workforce planning will be needed, alongside any structural changes introduced here.

The future of adult social care depends not only on funding or legislation but on whether people who deliver care feel valued, supported and able to build lasting careers. This should be our shared focus as this Bill progresses. I hope the Minister, when she replies, will talk about how we can value those care workers and make sure that they stay there, are educated, progress and are an addition to the values of this country and the way we work. Too often, they have been neglected. This is a chance to remedy that.

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, many of my noble friends have spoken about the possible collapse of the social care system. The toxic combination of chronic underfunding and the dysfunctional market system means that thousands of elderly and disabled people do not get the care that they need. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to establish a framework to establish legally binding agreements that, at long last, would set pay, conditions and terms for workers in the adult social care sector: an adult social care negotiating body in England made up of relevant employers and trade unions.

Staff in the sector are voting with their feet. They are leaving in droves. The vacancy rate is one of the highest in the economy and 130,000 jobs remain unfilled. Low pay is endemic. Over 400,000 adult care workers live below the real living wage, and 40% of the whole workforce live below the real living wage. A quarter are living on the verge of poverty and one-tenth are living with food insecurity. That is hardly a vote of confidence in our social care system.

Perhaps the most important reason for not delaying the action that is so desperately needed rests in the costs to our National Health Service. The latest State of Care report from the Care Quality Commission stated in April this year that waits for care home beds and home-based care accounted for almost half the delays in discharging patients who had been in hospital for more than 14 days. Nearly 4,000 people were delayed on an average day. The proposed fair pay agreement for adult social care staff has the potential to do so much good. Low pay, the lack of any career ladder and limited professional recognition are all inextricably linked in the social care sector. Experienced care workers with over five years’ service are paid, on average, just 8p an hour more than a new starter. There is little or no incentive for care workers to remain in the service; there is no meaningful career progression.

I cannot support the idea, which has been floated, that the new negotiating body would not apply to providers of care in the private sector. The whole point of the proposed fair pay agreement is that it will address low pay across the whole sector, not just those who are publicly funded. It would be deeply divisive, creating a two-tier care workforce with some benefiting and others shut out.

Privately funded providers should be requested to sit on the proposed adult social care negotiating body. We need that body to cover the whole sector, not just the public sector. If it is to work and to be successful in driving up pay standards across the whole sector, it must apply to the broadest definition of care workers. The proposed fair pay agreement is the first step towards a more structured pay system that over time should enable employers to offer a career pathway into social care, rather than low-status, low-paid employment with a high turnover rate.

So many of our citizens who need social care will benefit from the suggestions in this Bill. It is the first building block to a national care service. It will help with one of the most intractable problems facing our public services. The chief executive of the National Care Forum stated:

“We welcome any measures to strengthen the rights and improve the pay, terms and conditions of the social care workforce who make a significant contribution to our economy and the lives of millions of people”.


I ask that we allow this proposal, which will do so much good, to go forward, and that any amendments are no longer pursued.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset what an important debate this has been. We on these Benches support fair pay, decent working conditions and recognition of the vital work that social care workers do. I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in his tributes, and welcome and thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I want to say how pleased we all are that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has decided to come and deal with this issue, in a Bill for which she has no immediate responsibility but certainly does in the context of the social care negotiating body.

I had no part in deciding which group of amendments I would respond to, and I find myself in some difficulty, because the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave us the most brilliant exposition of the 126 years since the ILO was established in 1919 and the right to collective bargaining. However, in a way, that was directed not so much to the Minister but to his noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who, under the European Convention on Human Rights, signed to say that:

“In my view the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.


Therefore, is it not the noble Baroness who should be responding to the tour de force that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? Perhaps she has already communicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, what she would say in response.

We on these Benches cannot support a structure that hands over the steering wheel of national employment frameworks to a narrow group of trade union and employer representatives with little regard for broader public interest, service user experience or the realities of a publicly funded care system. By insisting that the chair be chosen exclusively by agreement between union officials and employer representatives, and in the event of disagreement by ACAS, these amendments would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk deadlock. By removing ministerial appointment, a crucial source of impartial leadership and accountability disappears. We cannot afford a negotiating body that stalls at the first sign of disagreement.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Prentis of Leeds Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate all those making their maiden speeches today; they were absolutely brilliant.

I too speak in favour of this Bill. How often have we heard myths extolling the virtues of a society with a light touch, a society where markets prevail and benefits trickle down? For many, the reality is far different. Profits, yes, but made at the expense of vulnerable workers; loopholes exploited; a compliant workforce with few protections; trade union rights, stripped back. The result? Almost 7 million citizens in severely insecure work. Of those, almost 4 million workers are on universal credit.

The UK was shamed earlier this year for being the eighth most unequal economy of the 40 studied, and that is why this Bill is so important. It creates stepping stones towards building a modern workforce: new measures to tackle insecure work; scrutiny of procurement, with a two-tier workforce agreement restored; enhanced rights against unfair dismissal; contracts reflecting the hours worked. Most of all, the Bill lays the foundations of a modern system of industrial relations, with social partnership, not conflict, at its core, tackling some of the most intractable issues facing our economy. The school support staff negotiating body, restored—the key to professional recognition for a group for workers overlooked for so long.

But nothing could be more significant than the proposals to transform social care. Social care is close to breaking point, weighed down by a toxic combination of chronic underfunding and dysfunctional markets. Over 130,000 social care jobs are unfilled, and the annual turnover rate is 25%. Some 400,000 social care workers are living on the verge of poverty. Their travelling time is not paid, and they work 14-hour shifts on zero-hours contracts, with little if any career progression. Meanwhile, on average 4,000 people every day are not able to leave hospital because of the lack of care. This Bill heralds the action so desperately needed, creating the fair work agency and the first pay agreement in adult social care in England.

Today, as we speak, an employer in Knowsley, Livv Housing, is a stark reminder of why the Bill is so important. Faced with legitimate action for fair pay, Livv Housing does not engage; it does not look into the underlying causes of the dispute. Instead, it offers a pay increase only to non-union workers and to those willing to give up their union. It threatens outsourcing and brings in strike-breaking companies—Dickensian, bully-boy tactics which cannot be fair by any standard. I ask my noble friend the Minister urgently to look into what is happening with Livv Housing.

This Bill is our chance to instil fairness back into the workplace; to restore balance; to ensure that workers are treated with dignity and that their contribution is valued, especially those at Livv Housing. It is a Bill that makes a profound and positive difference to people’s lives. It is our chance to make a difference—our chance to secure a better life at work.