British Steel Business Plan

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government stepped in to preserve this strategic steel-making capacity, but taxpayer support cannot substitute for commercial viability indefinitely. Britain needs its own steel industry to support defence, manufacturing, infrastructure, economic security and skilled jobs. As I said previously, the new board under Alan Lovell must set out a credible plan to profitability, with clear investment priorities, operational improvements and measurable milestones, and we will publish his plan in due course.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, after years of uncertainty, underinvestment and unfair competition, steelworkers and their communities will welcome this Government’s strategy and action. However, will my noble friend consider strengthening the procurement framework to include private companies that receive government support—in the form of government grants, subsidies or loans—so that every penny of taxpayers’ money, where possible, is used to protect jobs?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I will support her point in ensuring that our businesses have a fair chance in procuring anything that is up for procurement by British Steel. We must ensure that our businesses up and down the country have a fair chance of securing those contracts.

Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. However, I oppose the regret amendment and support these measures, which bring statutory union balloting into the 21st century, modernising an outdated postal-only system. Our primary purpose must be to make it easier for members to participate in their own union democracy. Higher turnout strengthens workers’ collective voice and ensures that votes are more representative of the membership.

All democrats should welcome these reforms; they have been a long time coming. Back in 2016, the then Conservative Government commissioned a review from Sir Ken Knight on union electronic balloting. However, the then Government never published a response. Even Sir Ken’s report acknowledged that a postal-only system disproportionately disenfranchises people with mobility disabilities and visual impairments, as well as young members, who are much more likely to rent and change address more frequently.

It also disadvantages significant groups of union members who spend long periods working away from home, such as offshore energy workers, seafarers, lorry drivers, cabin crew and air pilots, and construction and creative workers. So, I have no doubt that, in an age when we increasingly live our lives online, and, particularly post Covid, when growing numbers work online too, this reform will widen democratic participation.

Of course, it is right that concerns about cyber security and audits regarding e-ballots are taken very seriously. For unions, this will be addressed through the code of practice, and requirements such as ensuring scrutineers are Cyber Essentials Plus-accredited. I only wish that as stringent protection was required for company shareholder e-ballots, or indeed for e-ballots conducted by political parties—which have been running for years—given that the impact of any potential security breach for those organisations is at least as significant as for those conducted by trade unions.

The instruments in themselves do not change strike ballot thresholds or substantive legal tests, although of course this should pave the way for repeal of the 50% threshold which the Employment Rights Act ties to the introduction of e-balloting. Any update that the Minister can provide on how soon this will be progressed would be welcome.

It would also be helpful to have clarity on when phase 3 is going to happen and what could come from it. For example, unions want to be able to send ballots safely and securely to members’ workplace emails. Around a third of union membership databases can include workplace email addresses, so that change could help maximise participation too.

Finally, I would welcome reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that the extension of e-balloting to union recognition ballots will take place as early as possible in 2027.

Category 4 Steel Imports: Tariff-free Quotas

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I refer the noble Earl to other countries such as Canada and the USA, and to the EU. We are not the only country that has import tariffs. When a particular sector is impacted and it impacts on our domestic supply, it is right to have tariffs in place to protect the domestic sector, which in turn protects jobs and, I would hope, creates growth.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, government action on this in the workforce is extremely welcome, because for many years our domestic steel industry was threatened by the dumping of cheap Chinese steel. This action was motivated by trying to give our steel industry a chance to grow, to win and to provide the security and sovereignty this country deserves. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that he will keep under review the tariff regime and that he will maintain a strong engagement with trade unions, whose members have an interest across industries and jobs and want to see this policy work?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We currently review tariffs, and, as it stands, we are committed to reviewing them again at the end of the 12-month period. I state again that the quotas in place were informed by evidence and analysis of market conditions. Where steels products are not produced in sufficient quantities in the United Kingdom, mechanisms remain available to ensure that businesses can continue to access essential imports, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for the domestic industry.

Self-employed: Paternity Leave

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the importance of fathers and mothers, the whole family unit and kinship carers in nurturing families, and the role of families in our communities. The review is wide-ranging. It is considering all existing entitlements and is looking at the implications for economic growth, labour market participation, maternal health and the best start in life. I am sure it will also look at the uptake of existing measures as well as potential extensions to entitlements, on top of what is already in place.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is nearly a year since the Women and Equalities Committee recommended the introduction of a paternal allowance for self-employed working fathers and other parents, similar to the maternity allowance for self-employed mothers. The committee also said that the lack of any provision for self-employed working dads was “deeply unfair”. Do the Government agree?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The Government agree that more can be done to improve the system. The review is looking at the extension of entitlement to potential support for self-employed fathers as well as others in this quite complex system. We are looking at how we can take that forward. The review will conclude early in 2027 with findings and the next steps for reform.

Steel Sector

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

Energy supply and the sovereignty of our energy supply remain critical. All departments are currently looking at measures where we need to intervene in the near term to protect those industries with high energy demands, and to come up with the right practical solutions for the long term, which is our transition to renewables. That is a live conversation. We have had many meetings in the past week, and I think we will hear something in the coming days.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, both sides of the steel industry have welcomed government plans to speed up grid connections and make it easier for developers to build their own grid connections. All that will help to boost investment. Will my noble friend the Minister commit to regular updates on progress on those commitments so that we know that it is happening? Will he join me in congratulating the “Save our Steel” campaign for defending jobs and the progress it has made so far?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. The issue of grid connections partly sits in my department; the House might be interested to know that we have 800 gigawatts of demand in new projects to 60 gigawatts of supply. Grid connections and making sure that the grid is fit for the future will be a massive part of what we do. We also have a prioritisation process that helps prioritise the highest value projects, not just economically but socially. I would be happy to update the House on that.

As to the “Save our Steel” campaign, it is worth stating that the steel factory in Scunthorpe is close to where I grew up and I have many friends who work in the industry. I commend that organisation and the work that it does in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the fact this is not just an economic story for the UK but about real lives and communities. The work it has done has been excellent.

International Women’s Day

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, ladies, sisters and brothers, I congratulate everyone who has chosen to give their maiden speech on International Women’s Day. I have to admit that I struggled with how to begin my contribution today— I hope I am not the only one—at a time when partial publication of the Epstein files, thanks only to the persistence of survivors, has exposed a transnational network of wealthy men steeped in greed, exploitation and rape; when major powers are dominated by self-styled strongmen who glorify machismo, so-called tradwives, ethnonationalism, state violence and war, with the lives of women and children dismissed as collateral damage; and when the Middle East is on fire. The best antidote to despair is hope, so on International Women’s Day I send solidarity to the courageous women around the world calling for peace, justice and equality, especially those in Palestine, Israel and Iran.

There is hope at home too, and noble Lords will not be surprised by what I am going to talk about. Whatever different views there may be on the Employment Rights Act, no one can deny that women workers stand to gain most. For years the UK has been blighted by a two-tier workforce, with women much more likely to be stuck at the bottom on low pay and insecure contracts. As a trade unionist friend once said to me, “Never mind the glass ceiling; working-class women are still trying to smash through the glass skirting board”. I am proud that Labour’s Employment Rights Act will make working life so much better. From this April, everyone will get sick pay from day one and 1.7 million low-paid workers will become entitled to statutory sick pay for the first time, the vast majority of them women. Soon, workers will have the right to guaranteed hours for the first time, reliable hours and a reliable income so that they can plan family finances and childcare. Young people, Black and ethnic-minority workers and women will disproportionately benefit. Social care workers who looked after our loved ones during Covid, even when they lacked proper PPE, will get their first-ever fair pay agreement, and eight in 10 of them are women.

There is so much more to celebrate. Women from across this House worked with Labour Ministers and the wonderful Zelda Perkins to tackle non-disclosure agreements. Thanks to the Employment Rights Act, NDAs designed to silence women who have suffered sexual harassment or any worker who has reported discrimination will no longer be enforceable—no more impunity for powerful harassers.

I hope that this is just the beginning—I am a trade unionist, forgive me. I want to see more. I want to see a better deal for new parents. I want young dads to know that, as a society, we are on their side too and that we can do better than a paltry two weeks’ paid paternity leave, so that they get proper paid time to bond with their babies and support their partners. The TUC has calculated that, at the current rate of change, it will take another 30 years to close the gender pay gap. We can turbocharge progress by boosting support for young families who want to share care more equally but, currently, simply cannot afford to do so.

Finally, for International Women’s Day, I make a plea to the Minister for overseas workers here in the UK. We must not replace one form of two-tierism with another. New rights will mean nothing if workers do not feel that they have the power to enforce them, and the evidence is that workers, including women in social care who are waiting for settled status, are less likely to report sexism, racism or any other form of labour abuse for fear that it will jeopardise their chances. Everyone—men and women, Black and white, whatever our background—deserves a fair rate for the job and the right to dignity and a voice at work.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

I have not forgotten the adult social care negotiating body or the school support staff negotiating body but, for reasons I set out at length in Committee and will not repeat, those bodies do not constitute collective bargaining and cannot be extended to other sectors. They are not collective bargaining, first, because the Act says they are not; secondly, because the parties have no autonomy over the subject matter, membership or procedure; and thirdly, because the Minister can overwrite the agreement or non-agreement. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the offer of this machinery, which the Bill can keep in its back pocket until needed.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 127 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, but I am conscious that some of my comments may also be relevant to Amendment 125, which I oppose.

According to the latest LFS figures, 6.4 million people hold a union card, making trade unionism by far the largest democratic membership movement in the UK. Many of Britain’s most innovative companies recognise trade unions and the real value that an independent voice for workers adds, including Rolls-Royce, Uber, Virgin Media and EDF Renewables, to name but a few.

We have heard on several occasions how union membership has declined since the 1980s, and no doubt we can debate the reasons for that. But it is also worth recording that the ONS’s annual survey of hours and earnings, which is a survey of employers, shows that today the pay of more than four in 10 jobs in the UK is set with reference to a union agreement. In other words, collective bargaining still sets the pace for the pay and conditions of a substantial part of the workforce, well beyond union membership—but expanding collective bargaining coverage has never been more urgent.

OECD analysis shows that the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. The picture on wealth inequality is even worse. That is bad for society and a brake on fair growth. It is not just about the families who work all the hours God sends yet still rely on benefits and food banks, or that under the previous Government living standards stagnated for 15 long years, or that the real threat to the survival of pubs, hospitality and small businesses on the high street is the prolonged squeeze on disposable income that has hammered consumer spending. It is more than that.

Ever since the previous Government’s austerity cuts, Brexit, and then Covid, there has been growing public anger that sacrifice has not been equally shared. The so-called trickle-down theory of economics has proven to be an elaborate con. To take one glaring example, in the financial year from 2023, the CEO of the outsourced services giant Mitie was paid nearly £15 million. That is 575 times that of a median worker at the company. I challenge any noble Lord to justify that.

Some noble Lords opposite may not like what trade unions stand for. In the other place, their party joined Reform in voting against better sick pay, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and protection against fire and rehire. But when it comes to collective bargaining, I have yet to hear the Opposition come up with a better plan for workers so that workers can win a fairer share of the wealth that, after all, they helped create. Perhaps we can hear an alternative today.

In the meantime, as we have heard, the evidence is clear: when individual workers combine their working power, they are much more likely to win better pay, safety, skills training, family-friendly policies, workforce engagement and, ultimately, higher productivity—a good deal for workers and for their employers.

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Government’s plan to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body and to establish a fair pay agreement for social care. This could be transformative, not only for the workforce but for the service and everyone who relies on its dedicated care. But we cannot stop there. We can debate the detail, but at the heart of my noble friend Lord Hendy’s amendment is the objective to spread the benefits of collective bargaining to more sectors of the economy. That would provide a level playing field for business, lift living standards, improve workforce well-being and boost company productivity, which in turn would aid fair growth.

In her response to the debate in Committee on 5 June, my noble friend Lady Jones, the Minister, said that the Government

“intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process … before considering rolling out agreements in other areas”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 943.]

I understand the concern to learn from the success of the commitments already contained within the Bill, but it would seem sensible to take powers to introduce more sectoral agreements now, so that the Government are ready to act quickly in the future.

I know that the Government understand the absolute urgency of the need to tackle inequality in this country, to get living standards rising and to boost business investment in skills and productivity. Sectoral collective agreements are one of the quickest, most flexible and most effective ways to do just that. But, in the meantime, will my noble friend the Minister kindly undertake to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Office Minister to explore how government procurement social value rules can promote fair work and a collective voice for workers?

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for directing our attention to collective bargaining, its historic importance in our national life and its relevance today.

Many in this Chamber today might know that the hero of establishing that collective bargaining system, which has been talked about by others, in 1928 was Stanley Baldwin, who was concerned about the excesses in the boardrooms of Britain. He regarded a lot of directors as profiteers. He promoted collective bargaining and trade unions as an antidote to that kind of greed. We now have another era of excessive boardroom remuneration and, in the absence of strong collective bargaining, too many boards do not seem restrained at all by the possible reaction of their workforce—and, boy, do they take advantage. More collective bargaining would help check this greed.

A start has been made. I will not go into the technicalities, but a start is made in the Bill’s provisions on fair pay agreements, including in the social care and school support staff sectors. We need a major step-up in British employment relations. We need a new system to improve productivity, investment and training. We need a new system based not on short-termism but on respect and investment in skills and capital. We need a new system which puts “them and us” behind us and bases itself on priorities, consultation and more equality.

Once this Bill—which does rebalance relations in this country to a considerable extent—is put to bed I ask the Government to go further and build an ambitious system which raises the national game. We can all do better in this country.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to all three amendments in this group, the second two of which are in my name.

I begin by thanking the Government for listening to and acting on the concerns of victims of harassment and discrimination, who have risked so much by speaking out for justice despite being bound by non-disclosure agreements. The Government’s Amendment 46 brings in radical change, as the Minister has described. I join the Minister in particularly mentioning Zelda Perkins of Can’t Buy My Silence; behind her have been other civic society groups, which have been unfailing and determined, and have refused to be discouraged.

I congratulate MPs who spoke out in the Commons. In this House, I was very glad that the Minister mentioned the names of the many noble Baronesses across the Benches who have been involved. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Morrissey and Lady Chakrabarti cannot be here today. We had all expected the amendments to come up on Wednesday, so with this sudden change of plan, they are here in spirit and will continue to watch over this legislation.

I also think she was right to take note of the engagement by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, because her years leading the trade union movement gave the Government the confidence they needed to take action. For that, we always remain respectful and grateful.

The Government will face a complex task in fashioning the regulations which must underpin this clause. Some NDAs, for example, are designed to protect children who are third parties in an event from disclosure of very personal details. This is complex and not easy issue. Those of us on these Benches will be watching very closely as the regulations are developed.

However, there is a key weakness in the proposed clause, which I am aware the Government cannot tackle in this Bill because of its scope. The clause and its protections apply only to workers and, indeed, to a narrow definition of workers which sits within the pre-existing legislation on disclosure. So, for example, a would-be actress interviewed by Harvey Weinstein would not be covered because she is not within the definition of worker. Now, an employee of Weinstein’s company could safely speak out on her behalf with this new legislation—that is the Zelda Perkins example—if they had witnessed harassment, so it is a real improvement.

However, the clause does not protect a job applicant, a company director, a self-employed contractor or a supplier—although I know the Government are looking at this issue—even though all of these people could lose their careers or sometimes their businesses by speaking out. We on these Benches will not stop this particular weakness preventing us supporting this amendment. We thoroughly do. However, it illustrates just how much more reform is needed to have a fully workable and effective framework for all people to speak out—and that leads me to the two other amendments in this group.

Amendment 95, in my name, would set up an office of the whistleblower to protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance with standards. It would bring redress against detriment, it would cover everyone—worker or not, public or private sector—and deal completely with the weaknesses in the NDA clause. I thank WhistleblowersUK and the numerous KCs who helped draft it. It really has had the work of some of our leading lawyers.

The office would act on a hub-and-spoke basis with existing regulators and investigators, almost all of whom are keen to see it in place because it delivers them the whistleblowing they need to be effective and to make the best use of their limited resources. Whistleblowers tell you where in the haystack to look and provide information from the inside that enables regulators, investigators and enforcement agencies to take action.

The Government are also committed to a duty of candour. I know there has been a bit of a hiccup this week, but the Hillsborough Law Now action group, which works so hard on duty of candour, will also tell them that the duty works much better if it is complemented by an office of the whistleblower, which then gives protection against detriment to those who do speak out as they should. The office is also not an expansion of regulation; Ministers have said it is, but it is not. It streamlines existing processes and provides mechanisms to enforce existing regulations, laws and sanctions. Experience in the US demonstrates that an office of the whistleblower becomes a major deterrent to bad actors. We would all want that. The US experience also suggests that the office would pay for itself within two years from recouped moneys and prosecutions, and then contribute substantial funds to the Treasury.

I recognise this is not the perfect Bill in which to place this reform, so I am looking to the Government to reassure me that they are seizing the issue. I hope that we are going to hear from the Minister in closing that the Grant Thornton review of the whistleblowing framework will be made public shortly. However, given that the terms of reference for that report were so narrow, I am also looking for a commitment to seriously —and in a timely way—progress to proper whistleblowing protection.

The third amendment in this group is Amendment 96 and was drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, together with the civic society group Protect, and signed by him, me and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. Neither the noble Lord nor the noble Baroness can be here today, so in a sense I am voicing for them. This amendment is an interim attempt to patch up some of the worst gaps in the present legislation we have on disclosure and whistleblowing until we get broader reform. It gives the Secretary of State powers to expand the range of unfair dismissal. Often, someone is a recognised whistleblower but the employer says, “No, we’re actually dismissing you because you’re not a good team player”, and it puts the whistleblower into an impossible position in the context of the employment tribunal, so that is exactly why this change is necessary.

It also requires employers to take reasonable steps to investigate disclosures. I know the noble Lord, Lord Willis, cannot conceive why the Government have not agreed to this amendment and it may be that he will be keen to test the opinion of the House if there is no significant reassurance that we can get some quick movement to try to deal with some of these most egregious circumstances. I have said that, if he cannot be present on Wednesday, when the issue would possibly come to a vote, I will act on his behalf.

Let me close by congratulating the Government. I hope that this strive forward on NDAs will make the Government eager to seize the whole whistleblowing agenda. The Government have already heard the acclamation, the congratulations and the real pleasure that the nettle has been grasped on an issue which is difficult and the Government have made a very significant change. However, surely we cannot allow a repeated flow of scandals, criminality and cover-up to both sully our country and cost so many so dear. I say to the Government, “Bravo for all you have done and, moving forward on the rest, please act—and act soon”.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Kramer and to add my strong support to my noble friend the Minister and the Government’s Amendment 46 on non-disclosure agreements. This will make the UK a world leader in legislation to end the silence around workplace harassment and discrimination.

Neary 10 years ago, the TUC conducted the biggest survey of its kind in Europe, which found that half of all women had experienced sexual harassment at work, and that figure rose to two-thirds of young women. Women on insecure contracts, including agency and zero-hours contracts, were the most vulnerable of all. Too often, women subjected to harassment felt they had no choice but to leave their jobs, risking their careers and livelihoods. Meanwhile, too often, the perpetrator remained in post, free to harass others.

I will always remember one young woman who quit her job after increasingly disturbing comments made by her boss. At her leaving party, he told her that his only regret was that he had not had the chance to get her in the store cupboard and rape her. This is why many of us believe so strongly that harassment is not a joke or a bit of banter, and is not to be trivialised. Whether it is racism, sexism or any other form of prejudice and discrimination, it is an abuse of power that has real-life consequences for those who suffer it. Settlement agreements with non-disclosure clauses compound the lack of power that many of those subjected to harassment feel.

This amendment is about protecting the free speech of victims and witnesses to harassment. This new right will not stop the use of settlement agreements, but it will stop them being used to gag victims. It puts the victims of and witnesses to abuse in the driving seat. They can decide whether they want to talk about the experience and who they want to talk to. That should give every perpetrator pause for thought.

As well as noble Lords on all sides who have supported this amendment—I see the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, too—and our own Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I also congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, the Employment Minister, Justin Madders, and the brilliant Lou Haigh MP for championing this change.

Like others, my last word of praise goes to all those campaigners, and certainly not least to Zelda Perkins and the campaign Can’t Buy My Silence. Zelda broke her silence eight years ago, and ever since has spoken up fearlessly on behalf of victims and survivors. I am so very proud.

We will still be watching, but I am so very proud that this Labour Government have really listened.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 273PA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I want to give an example of why this amendment is so important. Following a five-month freedom of information battle, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism was finally given access to 19 farm inspection reports produced by the Home Office between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half of the 845 seasonal migrant workers interviewed raised welfare issues including racism, wage theft and threats of being sent home. In nearly two-thirds of farms inspected, workers said that they were not always paid for the hours they spent at work, off sick or travelling, or that they faced pay deductions beyond the maximum allowed by law. Workers who complained were ignored or told they could leave the farm and go back to their home countries. One visa sponsor was recorded saying:

“Look, do you want to go home? Shush then”,


by workers protesting about working conditions.

A report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that none of the allegations raised during these inspections was ever investigated by the Home Office. Workers understandably concluded that the Home Office was more interested in checking their immigration status than upholding their rights and dignity at work. The only way that the fair work agency can do its job of stamping out exploitation is to guarantee safe reporting. Only then can migrant workers speak out about exploitation at work without fear that it will result in a bad employer silencing them by removing their visa. Ultimately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the rights of all working people are only ever as strong as those of the most vulnerable workers. This amendment seeks safe reporting that will benefit workers and decent employers alike. I hope my noble friend the Minister can support it too.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious of the sentiments expressed here, but it would put the Government and the Secretary of State in a very difficult legal situation if they were to hold information that they were not allowed to pass on to relevant authorities within the rest of government. I hear what the noble Baronesses have said, but I do not know, with all the other rights that are starting to come through this Bill, why anyone should be afeared, especially when they are here on a legitimate visa as in the example to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, has just referred. I am conscious of some of the exploitation, but I believe that same sponsor was suspended from sponsoring any more visas. I was not aware of what the Home Office did or did not do, but restricting the Secretary of State from formally upholding the law is quite a worrying trend.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I did have the pleasure of working on the Trade Union Act in 2016. I well remember the setting up of the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding. Its report forced the requirement for new members to opt in to the political fund following its recommendations.

The committee was brilliantly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I know that phrases such as “showed the best of this House” can sometimes be overused, but in this instance it was absolutely the case. It reported, I think, in five weeks. The secretariat was absolutely magnificent. The most important thing was that it was a cross-party committee and produced a cross-party consensus on the recommendations in all but one area, which I will return to.

One of the key considerations, and the one that is pertinent to this amendment, was the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment that, in future, union members would be asked to opt in to contributing to their political fund, rather than just being given the opportunity of opting out. At the time, most members of a union with a political fund paid a political levy into the fund unless they took the active decision to opt out of doing so. I remember that the Select Committee spent a long time debating this. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, who said that this was the established practice for 60 years, but there was quite a strong debate. My noble friend Lord King felt that the King-Murray agreement had not been met in full with the requirements to report opting out.

The report produced some very helpful conclusions. One of the most relevant to today’s debate was that no one challenged the principle of moving from opt-out to opt-in. There were differences of opinion about how and when to make the move and, critically, whether it should apply to existing members, but the report basically accepted the principle. The Labour Party had some understandable concerns. It was fearful that a move to opt-in would mean that many union members would decide not to contribute to the political fund and that such a move was fundamentally unfair.

However, when Sir Nick Clegg appeared before the Committee, he said:

“I regard political opinion, affiliation and support as a sovereign decision for an individual citizen”.


He was, of course, completely right. Opt-in is supported because people should not be assumed to support any proposition, organisation, product or service, simply because they have failed, often through inertia, to say no. Companies have been rightly pilloried when they have assumed that the customer has signed up to something because they failed to tick a box or to see the small print. If a trade union member decides that he or she does not wish to contribute to a political fund, that is their decision; they should have the opportunity to actively choose to do so.

The behavioural experts consulted by the committee gave some powerful evidence about the impact of inertia on human behaviour. At the time, the power of inertia benefited the unions because only 11% of their members made the effort to opt out of the political fund. Under the then Government’s proposals, inertia would work against the unions. Human nature meant it would be extremely difficult to persuade existing members to make an active choice about whether to opt in. Indeed, Dr David Halpern of the Behavioural Insights Team said that analogous situations led him to expect a fall of 20% to 30% in political fund participation rates.

That brought us on to the second consideration, which was that the move to opt in for existing members would have an impact on the funding of one particular party, the Labour Party. On balance, the committee concluded that there would be a significant reduction in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee agreed that one way of easing this dilemma would be to distinguish between the requirements for new members and those for existing members of trade unions. For new members, it was unanimously agreed that opt-in was the correct way forward. Across many different walks of life, it is increasingly recognised that people should be asked to exercise an active choice and that organisations should not rely on inertia. The recommendation that, after a minimum transition period of 12 months, anyone joining a union with a political fund should pay the political levy only if they have actively chosen to do so was subsequently incorporated into the Trade Union Act 2016. It is that consensus that the Labour Party is seeking to undo today with this Bill.

This was not the case in the treatment of existing members. The fear was not of existing members choosing to opt out rather than opt in, but that they would simply choose to make no choice at all. I recall many heated discussions about whether the opt-in system should be extended to existing members, perhaps on a longer transition period than for new members, or whether existing contributors should not be included in the Act—option two. This was because it was feared that extending the opt-in to existing members would have a significant negative effect on union and Labour Party funding, even with an extended transition period. I well recall those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, talks about considerable unhappiness on our Benches, and he is not understating the case: when the second option was chosen, there were howls of “Bad faith!” It was at a critical juncture in the Brexit referendum period.

I rather subscribe to the view of Sir Winston Churchill:

“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr Speaker”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]


Paragraph 115 of the Select Committee report stated:

“If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties, it would risk starting a tit-for-tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy”.


So, while it is wrong for a Government to use their power to undermine their opponents, it is also wrong for a Government to act in a way that leaves it open to question whether they are acting in the interests of the country as a whole or the interests of their own party.

The Labour Party’s dependence on trade union funds means that a policy could potentially be seen to be up for sale. Just as I had sympathy at the time with the need not to inflict damage on the finances of an opposition party, I find myself now more than a little bothered that the Labour Benches are seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle of opt-in so that their own party’s finances will be improved. I am sure that they would not wish to be accused of the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, but that is the effect of Clause 59. It is for this reason, and because of the compelling and universal arguments in favour of opt-in, that I have added my name in support of this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

I am sorry to do this to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on her birthday, but she was in a very key position in government for some time, so it would be helpful if, first, she could confirm, on the issue of ballot turnouts, that the previous Government, over their 14 years, received repeated representations from trade unions to enjoy the same rights that political parties enjoy to safe and secure balloting in a bid to boost democratic turnout in ballots, so that we would be able to encourage and engage more members in ballots. What we got, I think, was a review and a promise of a pilot that was never seen again.

Secondly, comparisons were made between trade union membership and subscriptions to commercial services, whereas, of course, membership of a democratic organisation which exists to defend your rights is not the same as a subscription to a for-profit service.

Finally, because we have heard a lot in this debate about balance, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the previous Government ever considered shareholders having the right to veto political donations by companies? I have never even heard of a shareholder’s right to opt out, never mind a requirement that they should opt in before a political donation is made by a company.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I cannot speak to the balloting, et cetera, which is out of the scope of this amendment. I can say that shareholders in companies are able to vote at their company’s AGM.

I did not pay tribute in my speech—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—to the brilliant political campaigns that were run by UNISON when I was in government. They were remarkable, and my support for opt-in does not diminish my admiration for them.