Lord Sharpe of Epsom:

Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom

125: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—“Right to opt out of collective agreements(1) A worker who is not a member of a trade union may elect, in writing, to opt out of the terms of a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to them under this Act. (2) In such a case, the worker shall be entitled to rely on the statutory rights conferred by this Act without reference to the collective agreement.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment provides non-union workers with the right to opt out of collective agreements, reinforcing individual freedom of contract and protecting access to statutory entitlements.

My Lords, Amendment 125 in my name speaks to a fundamental principle that we should run through every piece of employment legislation that we consider, and that it is the right of the individual to determine their own path.

Too much of the Bill rests on an implicit and rather patronising assumption that workers are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs—that they must be corralled, collectively represented, spoken for and ultimately told what is best for them. This amendment challenges that assumption head on. It affirms the right of a worker who is not a union member to say that they wish to stand on their own two feet and do not wish to be bound by collective agreements that they had no part in negotiating and no say in accepting. That is not anti-union; it is pro-choice and pro-individual. If we believe in personal responsibility then we must also believe in personal freedom. Some workers are independent-minded individuals, who want to make their own decisions about their pay and their terms and conditions.

We have to be clear: statutory rights remain in place. This amendment would do nothing to undermine minimum standards; it would simply allow the worker to rely on those rights without being bound by a collectivist framework that they never opted into. That is not a threat to fairness but the definition of fairness.

The Government treat workers as a monolith. They are defined not by merit or initiative but by membership and conformity. This proposed Clause offers a quiet but powerful alternative: that the individual workers matter, that their preferences matter, and that freedom of contract is not some abstract legal concept but a cornerstone of liberty. I beg to move.

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 127, I will say a few words about Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. He and other noble Lords on that side of the House often accuse those on this side of ignorance of business, but his amendment shows ignorance of what happens in industrial relations on the ground.

I will make three points. First, there is nothing in the law to prevent an employer and an individual employee agreeing an improvement to terms and conditions on an existing collective agreement, save in exceptional circumstances such as that illustrated by the case of Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom, where the employer offered to pay workers a higher rate of pay if they surrendered their union membership. That principle would also apply to prevent the penalisation of workers on the grounds of any other protected characteristic. However, as a general principle, workers and employers can agree to improve on an existing collective agreement.

Secondly, why would an individual employee agree to detrimental terms worse than an existing collective agreement—lower wages, longer hours, fewer holidays, fewer breaks, and worse terms and conditions? There can be no reason why a worker would wish not to abide by the existing collective agreement. Employees need protection against bad employers who might otherwise exploit the proposed loophole by saying to an individual employee, “I want you to opt out of the collective agreement”, hence undermining it.

Thirdly, collective agreements are not dictated by the trade unions but are agreed by an employer and, usually, by a vote of the employees. We need more negotiation and less litigation.

With that, I turn to my Amendment 127, which is intended to provide my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State with a mechanism to promote and encourage collective bargaining on a sector-wide basis without prescribing in detail the model to be deployed. It would be used when needed and would not compel the Government to put it into operation. I will not repeat the arguments about collective bargaining that I developed in Committee over the course of three speeches, but I think I may be permitted to summarise the gist of those arguments in six points.

First, the Bill makes commendable reforms to the legal machinery to establish collective bargaining between trade unions and a single employer, but there is no mechanism in the Bill or anywhere else for multi-employer collective agreements or sector-wide collective agreements.

Secondly, sectoral collective bargaining was the norm for the United Kingdom from 1918 until 1990. It established a coverage of over 80% of British workers between 1945 and the late 1980s. The percentage of workers covered by collective agreement has now declined to 25%. That means that three-quarters of our workforce are employed on “take it or leave it” terms, without any possibility of negotiating anything better than that which the employer offers.

Thirdly, 80% collective bargaining coverage is curiously—or coincidentally—the level now set for the 27 member states of the European Union, after two decades during which the EU undermined sectoral collective bargaining. That policy was reversed in 2024 by means of a directive. Collective bargaining is now advocated by the OECD, since 2017, the IMF and, of course, the ILO.

Fourthly, Labour’s green paper, A New Deal for Working People; its subsequent publication on making work pay, implementing the new deal for working people; Labour’s election manifesto; and the King’s Speech all endorsed the extension of collective bargaining.

Fifthly, I come to the benefits of sectoral collective bargaining, which need spelling out again. There are at least eight benefits, as I identify them. The first is that sectoral collective bargaining increases wages. Let us recall that the real value of wages has risen only 0.5% in the past 20 years. Secondly, a rise in wages increases demand in the economy—demand for the goods and services produced by employers. Thirdly, collective bargaining contracts the differentials that have emerged: the gender pay gap, the ethnic-minority pay gap, the disability pay gap and so on. Fourthly, by increasing wages, collective bargaining diminishes the need for state benefits by way of subsidy to low wages. Let us not forget that 31% of those in receipt of universal credit are in work, which gives an indication of the lowness of wages in this country. Fifthly, increasing wages increases the Government’s tax take, which diminishes the need to find money elsewhere. Sixthly, sectoral collective bargaining prevents employers undercutting each other on labour costs. Seventhly, the other side of that coin is that it encourages employers to compete on productivity, investment, efficiency and innovation. Eighthly—this is an important point—it achieves a form of democracy at work. It gives workers a say in the terms and conditions on which they work.

I said there were six points, and the sixth and final point is one of particular interest to me as a lawyer. It is the observation that the rule of law plays a part here. The rule of law, Lord Bingham’s eighth principle, is that states must abide by the treaties they have ratified. That principle has been endorsed in almost every speech I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney-General, give since his appointment to that office. This is significant because International Labour Organization Convention No. 98 and Article 6.2 of the European Social Charter 1961 impose the duty on ratifying states, which includes the United Kingdom, not just to permit collective bargaining but to promote and encourage it. The Bill was the opportunity to promote and encourage collective bargaining at sectoral level, but it does nothing to do so in any sector of the economy.

I remind the House that I previously quoted these short sentences from the European Committee of Social Rights, which held that

“if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements” and that

“where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in practice”.

The United Kingdom is now significantly below 30% of collective bargaining coverage. In many sectors, collective bargaining is not, to use the words of the committee, spontaneously developing: one has only to think of agriculture, food and parcel delivery, hospitality, social care and so on.

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.

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

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?

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.

My Lords, in response to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I want to explore the fact that we currently have strong representation from the unions. We have seen, through recent strikes, that there is an ability to go out there and voice your opinion.

My worry—I would like to have this recorded—as a businessperson, as my registered interests lay out, is that most of the businesses impacted will be SMEs, which are already predominantly very good employers. Most small and medium-sized businesses work with their workforce. We all wish to do well because we want better productivity, and it is not in our interests not to do so.

I remind noble Lords that my own grandfather was one of the founders of the Indian Workers’ Association because, at that time, unions were not properly representing minority communities. My worry is that we are going to go back to a place where people from minority communities, who do not actually know whether they have a choice to be part of a union or not, will have to come back into a union—whether or not they know that they are a member. I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, how that would be clarified. There will be many from minority communities who work incredibly hard, are ambitious and aspirational, and want to end up owning their own business, who find that working and learning from employers is the best way to do it.

I fully support my noble friend’s Amendment because I think that the world has moved on so much. Technology has enabled us to do so many things differently so that we are far more able to hold employers to account. There is no place to hide for bad employers. I do not think that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will actually make a lot of difference to today’s workforce, as we are using a lot of new technologies to be able to make sure that the workplace is a much fairer place.

I do not really recognise the workplace that the noble Baroness describes. The fact of the matter is that only some—

I think I am right in saying the Companion says that the noble Lord is not allowed to speak twice in the debate as he has not moved the Amendment.

Maybe I could say what I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was going to say. The workplace is not necessarily quite as put. Both my grandmothers were businesspeople in their own right, with small businesses. The one we always call my English grandmother—because she was not the Irish one—was asked towards the end of her life whom she thought were the best politicians. She, rather like her grandson, had managed to vote for all the parties before she died. She said that the greatest politician in Britain was Stanley Baldwin, because he cooled down Britain after the general strike and, as she used to put it, he got rid of our Nazi King. So I have a lot of time for Stanley Baldwin. He is also one of my heroes, and the fact of the matter is that this is a thoroughly good Amendment. Collective bargaining is a thoroughly good thing, and I hope I have not misrepresented too much what I think my friend was about to say.

I want to intervene very briefly to reflect on the difference between the debate this afternoon and the debate we had at the time of the P&O disaster—I call it a disaster for all the people who were basically sacked. It was very difficult to get information about what was right and what was wrong, and who was their employer. We were fed a load of, frankly, bad information from the company, and we got some good information from the trade unions.

Let us just reflect, however, on what my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady O’Grady said about how things have changed. It would have been wonderful if we had heard their speeches before we debated P&O, because the problem is still just as bad and still needs resolving. I am very glad to welcome these two people in particular, and I hope we will hear much more from them.

Will noble Lords allow me to say a word in support? I was a little late coming in because I misread the screen; I thought we were on Amendment 122. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 125 because it would reinforce the individual freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract, and it would protect access to statutory rights. I say this in response to some of the points made about what other arrangements could be in place. I will refer to one law firm commenting on the importance of freedom of contract in our Laws. It reflected—

I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness in full flow. She said she was not here for the start of the debate on the group, so it would be a courtesy to the House to leave it at that.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke—my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady O’Grady, Lord Monks and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, tabled Amendment 125, which seeks to give workers the right to opt out of collective agreements. Workers are free to join or not to join a trade union. It is their choice. They are not compelled to pay any union subscriptions, or any part thereof, where a union is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes—so they do not need to pay any union subscription or join a union.

Many employers choose to recognise a union voluntarily. One advantage of trade union recognition is that this enables the employer to negotiate collective agreements, the terms of which may apply to all workers in a workplace. My noble friend Lord Hendy explained so clearly the principles of collective agreements—he said all that I needed to say.

The application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends, in any event, on incorporation of those terms into the workers’ contracts, either expressly or by implication. That is the normal position. But providing some individual workers with a new statutory right to withdraw from the provisions agreed under a collective agreement, even where they can rely on statutory entitlements, would create an unnecessary risk of a multi-tier system, with workers on different terms and conditions of employment. We believe that this would not be beneficial to employers as it would likely create more red tape and confusion. We cannot, therefore, support this amendment.

Amendment 127 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. We welcome any support for sectoral collective bargaining and we appreciate the informed and wide-ranging debate we had in Committee on these points. We are demonstrating our commitment to sectoral collective bargaining with the social care and school support staff sectors, as was debated on the earlier group.

We believe that bespoke primary legislation will be required to allow such bodies to operate as effectively as possible. This will allow Parliament to fully consider any such sectors and scrutinise the frameworks for the new bargaining processes. We welcome all representation regarding next steps on sectoral collective bargaining, and we are working hard to consider the groundwork required for future models. However, before this work is done, we do not seek the sweeping powers that my noble friend’s amendment aims to give the Secretary of State without a sufficiently clear purpose or plan.

I say to my noble friend Lord Hendy that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining where appropriate, and we recognise the positive contribution it can make to Britain’s economy. However, different sectors will have different needs, so we need to ensure that any legislation on collective bargaining is fit for purpose for each of the specific sectors. Developing the legislation in collaboration with the sector and workers will be key to success. I hope this offers my noble friend some comfort and that he will not go further with this amendment.

I referred to my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I will ensure that I mention this to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the Cabinet Office Minister, so that she can organise meetings for her with officials in the department. I totally agree with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about ethnic minority business. Most businesses are good businesses. What this Bill does is go after those minority unscrupulous businesses that exploit workers. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 125.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. I confess that I will have to go back and bone up on my Stanley Baldwin history—I was not expecting that. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, accused me of ignorance of industrial relations. He asked why anyone would agree to detrimental terms, but that is missing the point, I fear. We are saying that they should be allowed to agree to different terms. Why should a worker not be allowed to trade some holiday entitlement for extra pay, for example?

We agree that we need significantly less litigation. We have been discussing that throughout the passage of the Bill. Unfortunately, as we have also discussed, so much of the Bill is likely to lead to rather more. I was very interested in the noble Lord’s comments about the workforce up until 1990, but my noble friend Lady Verma hit the nail on the head when she talked about small businesses. The fact is that the workplace has changed so dramatically in the last 35 years that I do not think that necessarily remains a valid comparison.

We have argued that free negotiation between employers and employees must be the foundation of any fair and modern employment framework. But we regret that what we see here is a model rooted in uniformity and prescription. That is flawed not just in detail but in principle, because a one-size-fits-all approach flattens the complexity and diversity of real working life and ignores the dignity and agency of the individual. Having said that, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, carefully and, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 125.

Amendment 125 withdrawn.