Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, that those who work in this sector deserve our every possible support. It is just that the amendments that he supported, which were proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will not deliver that. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging and associating myself with the very warm words about the value of care workers on whom we rely so much. The challenges are immense, as we have heard many times and not just in this debate—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is an important as well as a very interesting debate—and this is key to how we will support the provision of social care into the future. I too look forward to the work from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and feel confident that we have Whitehall’s number one doer on the case.

On the value of care workers, I extend my thanks and appreciation for all that they do in very difficult circumstances. I can say to noble Lords and care workers across the country that that is exactly why we are bringing in the Employment Rights Bill. That is what we, the Government, are here to do.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his appreciation of my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to be—in the nicest possible way—across the Chamber from him. This is a key matter and one that is very relevant, because it is about the future of social care.

I now turn to the amendments and will then return to the more general points. On Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am very grateful for the engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this matter with my noble friend Lady Jones, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, has written setting out the steps we are taking on dementia training. I hope that it is useful reassurance that regulations can indeed provide for additional matters to be included in the remits of the negotiating bodies rather than being included in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked about procedure. I can confirm that the Bill states that any regulations to add a matter such as training to the remit of the bodies will be subject to the affirmative procedure in order that it may be fully scrutinised by Parliament. I can see that the noble Baroness is very pleased about that, and therefore I am very pleased.

I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie will understand that I very much appreciate the intent behind this amendment. Taken at face value, it is no comment on the importance of dementia training—to which I am very committed—but, by specifying in the Bill the extent of the bodies’ remits, it would prejudge consultation and limit the opportunity for sector engagement. That would create difficulties that we do not want to create.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised the importance of training in dementia, and its absence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I reassure them that the adult social care learning and development support scheme in England supports adult social care employers through funded training opportunities, including a range of opportunities that cover the Dementia Training Standards Framework, and we are pleased that the scheme will continue in the financial year 2025-26, backed up by up to £12 million.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a question about engagement with Skills for Care. I confirm that Skills for Care is consulted with and that our working group, and task and finish groups, bring together trade unions, representative bodies of adult social care providers and other relevant stakeholders such as Skills for Care. I hope that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who made specific reference to the role of trade unions. They do have a role; they represent and are a voice for working people, and we are extending our consultation beyond trade unions because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, rightly said, there are groups such as Skills for Care and others who also have a very helpful voice.

I turn now to Amendments 181, 182, 183, 184, 186 and 191 by my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that he met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, to discuss them on 3 June, and I am grateful to him for his time and engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might agree with some of the points, if not all the interpretations, in each amendment.

Amendment 181 seeks to change the appointment process by making the selection of the chair subject to a public appointments process. That is not an amendment we find favour with, because the Bill as it stands will improve transparency and confidence and ensure that all the right processes are followed. We feel that that is the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her thorough and comprehensive introduction to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her perspective and experience, which are very valuable contributions to this debate.

This is a measured and constructive idea. As we have heard, the social care workforce is highly mobile, and too often valuable training is overlooked or repeated when someone moves to a new role. A centralised system that records training could easily help ensure that skills are recognised across the sector, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary duplication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, in many cases a unique expertise would be brought that deserves to be recognised. It would also show respect for the professional development of care workers. It would signal that their time, effort and learning are worth tracking and carrying forward and are not lost at the point when they change jobs.

I of course acknowledge that the practical arrangements for such a scheme would need careful planning, but the principle is sound. Enabling continuity in workforce development would support retention, raise standards and bring consistency to a fragmented sector. I seriously hope that the Minister is listening.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on Amendment 200A. I certainly can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am listening very closely. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which would require social care providers to ensure that their employees have access to any scheme logging training achievements that Social Work England may establish. Let me say at the outset that I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to give care workers development and extend their skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Palmer, said, this would contribute to what this Bill seeks to do, which is to improve retention, the quality of work and the regard for care workers, and encourage recruitment, among many other very positive outcomes. However, unfortunately, the amendment does not do the job that I know is intended, because Social Work England does not regulate the work of social care workers, but only that of social workers. The amendment as drafted gives us difficulty, but I do completely understand what it tries to do.

Let me respond to a number of the points that were made. There are currently no plans to add to the existing regulation of care workers in the sector undertaken by CQC, but let me refer to the care workforce pathway, which may be of interest and assistance to a number of the noble Lords who contributed. The care workforce pathway is the first universal career structure for the adult social care workforce. On 9 April this year—not so long ago—my department published the expansion and revision of the care workforce pathway, which includes the crucial role categories for registered and deputy managers and personal assistants, as well as the new enhanced care worker role. That speaks to some of the issues the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about the social care workforce. When we talk about the social care workforce, this is a wide group; it is a team of people, and they are all working to support whoever is in receipt of their care.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—in particular, how we recognise experience and training—I completely take the point. I can give the assurance that the department is already undertaking work on skills and learning and developing a digital skills record, which will provide a permanent and verifiable record of skills and achievements for members of the adult social care workforce. Most importantly, to the point raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, it can be shared with new or potential employers, which can help to reduce unnecessary duplication of training and make taking on new recruits faster, which is key. So, we are all in extreme agreement about the importance of training for the social care workforce, if not about the actual letter of the amendment.

On regulations being able to provide for other matters relating to employment, as we discussed in the previous group in respect of Amendment 185, the Bill already sets out that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in respect of matters that will be included in the negotiating bodies’ remits, which can of course include training and other matters. As a gentle bit of clarification for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was making clear in the previous group that any regulations in this regard are subject to the affirmative procedure. I was not being as specific as I know she hoped I would be, but it is important to make that position a bit clearer. So, on any matter within its remit, the negotiating body could determine employee entitlements, which could be incorporated into relevant workers’ contracts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about apprenticeships. Just last week, the Department for Education announced the launch of a health and social care foundation apprenticeship, set to begin from August 2025, which I am sure we will all welcome. This will offer young people a paid route into the health and adult social care sectors; I will not be alone in very much welcoming that.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about professional development and transferring across jobs. That principle is certainly being included in our health and social care sector, in respect of the digital skills record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is a teamwork approach based around whoever needs the care. It requires different skills, which can be transferrable across different jobs, so the noble Lord makes a fair point.

With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will agree to withdraw Amendment 200A.

NHS: Single-sex Spaces for Staff

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for bringing this issue before the Grand Committee, and all noble Lords, particularly the two Front-Bench spokespersons, for the tone, which I also wish to impart to this important debate. A noble Lord said that we want to do the right thing, and I endorse those words. We heard a call for kindness, compassion and common sense throughout; again, that is absolutely the hallmark of how the Government are approaching this. Last but not least, I thank my noble friends Lady Griffin and Lady Levitt, who were kind enough to bring their own experiences and that of their families into the Room. It is always so important that we remember that we are talking about people here.

I say at the outset that the Government believe that NHS staff deserve to be treated with dignity and respect at work. This includes providing single-sex spaces. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, set out that position very clearly. The Supreme Court has now ruled that sex means biological sex in the Equality Act, and with regard to the legal definition of a woman for its purposes. I heard the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, that this was required, but the ruling brings clarity and confidence. It says to service providers and others that they must follow the judgment. That is the guiding light: this is the law, and we expect all public service bodies to comply with it. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are looking at ways to support public bodies in doing so.

I want to state clearly that trans people must have access to the services that they need in the broadest sense, and that they are also provided with protections under equality law. Access will need to be in line with the law.

I heard my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, the Lord Privy Seal, say on BBC Radio 4 recently that there is nothing that cannot be dealt with, with kindness, compassion and a bit of practicality and calmness—I emphasise that last word. In a practical sense, dealing with matters of access, many examples of which have been raised in this debate, may not be the same in all circumstances, and relevant organisations will need to look carefully and sensitively at these issues. I appreciate that implementing changes may generate some operational challenges and have financial implications, but, in my view, it is not beyond the ability of the NHS to find a path through that resolves these issues in a way that ensures the safety and dignity of patients and of staff. Noble Lords have rightly paid tribute to the work that staff do, and we are absolutely here to respect and support them.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has committed to issuing a new statutory code of practice, and all service providers would be expected to comply with it. On the EHRC, which my noble friend Lady Levitt in particular drew attention to, it is, as we know, an independent body. To remind us, it has

“the responsibility to encourage equality and diversity, eliminate unlawful discrimination, and protect and promote the human rights of everyone in Britain”.

As I mentioned, in the light of the judgment, the EHRC has committed to produce an updated code of practice by the end of June for ministerial approval—I heard many calls for ministerial involvement, and I hope that that response will be helpful—following a public consultation. The EHRC update that noble Lords have referred to is interim and provides its reflections on the Supreme Court ruling. I wish to emphasise to my noble friend and noble Lords that it is not official guidance at present, but I reiterate that employers and other duty bearers have to follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where they need to. I hope that will be helpful, and I am sure that my noble friend will engage in the consultation on this important matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Jenkin, referred to the Darlington nurses. I am sure that noble Lords understand that I will not go into the detail of that specific dispute, as it is an ongoing legal matter, but I can confirm that the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, met with representatives last year and has been in further contact with them since to understand any further concerns. As I have already said, the Government have called for, and continue to call for, the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. The ruling provides added certainty—I will put it that way to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—on this matter, and Darlington Memorial Hospital, along with all other public service providers, must comply with the ruling.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, reference to the matter of single-sex spaces for patients, although the debate relates to staff. The core principle governing this issue is that providers of NHS-funded care should have a zero-tolerance approach to mixed-sex accommodation, except where it is in the overall best interests of all patients affected. The reason for saying that is, of course, that there can be times when there is so much pressure on accommodation that there has to be common sense and flexibility in the interim. This aligns with the NHS constitution, in which the NHS pledges that patients admitted to hospital

“will not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite sex”.

Fundamentally for me, as the Patient Safety Minister, this issue affects some of the most vulnerable patients, such as those in mental health settings. It is imperative that we get this right to tackle sexual harassment and violence in hospital care settings, for which we also need zero tolerance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and others raised the pace of change. NHS England is revising its guidance in line with the ruling, and this will be done in a way that respects the dignity and safety of trans patients, as well as of women. I make this point particularly as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Nicholson, referred to guidance; this is how it will be dealt with. The intention, confirmed by the Secretary of State, is that the NHSE guidance will be published before the summer. I assure noble Lords that we will work with NHSE on this, and that any guidance will need to align with the EHRC’s statutory code of conduct. Noble Lords will understand that a number of points are coming together.

I would very much like to pick up some of the points that noble Lords were good enough to raise. My noble friend Lady Griffin asked about those who have a gender recognition certificate. Trans people are protected from discrimination and harassment in the Equality Act. That does not change. Those with a GRC are still recognised in their acquired sex and gender in other circumstances, unless specific exceptions apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the Health and Safety Executive in respect of employers that may be operating unlawfully. I simply emphasise that all providers have to follow the Supreme Court ruling.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, referred to NHS Confederation guidance, and there was reference throughout, in addition to the Darlington nurses, to the Scottish case of Sandie Peggie. I know noble Lords understand that it is not possible for me to comment on that case. However, on guidance, the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, simply demonstrated the need to get language right throughout. That is exactly what will happen.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised a number of cases of violence towards trans women, often by men. How we protect trans people from hate crime is a very important point that we must be very aware of and alert to, and act on. Strong protections remain in place for all communities to live free from discrimination. There is zero tolerance for hate crimes of any kind, and we will support the police in taking the strongest possible action against perpetrators of these abhorrent offences.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and my noble friends raised concerns about the fear that trans people are facing. There are rightly laws in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment. I want to acknowledge—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made this point well—that, although those laws are in place, I am absolutely aware of their fear, uncertainty and concerns. This is not a situation that we would wish to continue; dignity and respect for everyone must run throughout.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked what the guidance on single-sex wards might look like. We will update those policies, and their detail is receiving a lot of attention. I cannot comment on the specific details, but I look forward to the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House being made aware of what is in that guidance. We are always open to improvement.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for instigating this debate. I look forward to working on it further.