Employment Rights Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reasons

Relevant documents: 20th and 29th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 7th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:35

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because it would weaken workers’ rights to guaranteed hours.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.

Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.

I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.

However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.

Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.

We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1B.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his expert guidance. Your Lordships could be excused for a sense of déjà vu, perhaps because we are back in your Lordships’ House with the same issues we discussed on 28 October. They remain unresolved and, indeed, not addressed in any meaningful way.

Since the last very similar session of ping-pong, I have had an engaging meeting with the Lords Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the Government’s hat at that point, but no—there was nothing. At first, I thought something substantive was being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers. But it has become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the Benches opposite but there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere, and for that I have some sympathy for the Ministers opposite, because they sit bare-headed at the moment, with nothing to offer.

Time has passed, however, and, if the Government’s position has not changed, what has? Well, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP, per capita productivity fell in the last quarter and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. Yet this ping-pong represents a doubling down—but for what? The Government’s manifesto vowed to “make work pay”, and we agree with that. None of these amendments confound this. My Motion A1 does not in any way dent the worker’s right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time that Motion A1 merely avoids unnecessary work, helping SMEs that have limited administrative capacity to get on with focusing on growing their business and, hopefully, creating more jobs. But, in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this.

Moving on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—Motion C1—we have consistently raised concerns about seasonal work. I welcome the Minister’s careful description of the issues in the current legislation—the problem being, of course, that there is outstanding consultation and outstanding details that make it difficult. We are not 100% happy with the noble Lord’s drafting, but we feel that it is a starting point for further conversations of the nature the Minister just brought up. We will support Motion C1 if it is voted on. Sorting the impasse on these Motions and those in subsequent groups requires political gumption. In the end, I suppose it will be up to No. 10—I understand that it might be preoccupied with other issues at the moment.

I close with one last statistic, this time from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. There are now 1.79 million people out of work and looking for a job. With economic inactivity stable at a staggering 21%, the number out of work appears to be rising not due to increasing inflow but rather due to limited outflow caused by difficulties in finding work. That is 1.79 million people. The Government did not address the arguments we put two weeks ago, and therefore they deserve the same response as last time. I beg to move Motion A1.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, here we are, back again.

In the ping-pong debate last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, stated:

“The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations”.—[Official Report, 28/10/25; col. 1246.]

15:45

I do not know whether the noble Baroness was serious in her comments or trying to assure your Lordships that the Government were listening—or was even, in the vernacular, “having a laugh”. She said that His Majesty’s Government have consulted 75 SMEs. Has she any idea how many SMEs there are in the UK? If not, I can assist her. There are some 5.5 million. I do not know which 75 SMEs she consulted—perhaps a random, or very selective, group. Every SME I have spoken to has many objections to the Bill. In fact, I have not spoken to one that is happy with the Bill, in part or in whole.

Certainly, one SME that the noble Baroness did not consult was that of a Mr Dunham, who I have never met, but who wrote to me on an unsolicited basis about the Bill. He wrote in his letter that Dunhams Washroom Systems is a third-generation, family-run manufacturer, based in Norfolk, which employs many local people, most of whom live within his community. He manufactures washroom systems for schools, public buildings and commercial clients across the UK and is proud to be a British manufacturer. He says:

“The Bill in its current form would impose unsustainable costs and compliance pressures that SMEs cannot absorb. It would reduce flexibility, make day-to-day operations harder, and force us to reconsider employment numbers and future job creation”.

In respect of Motion C1, he continues:

“For businesses like ours, which operate in the education sector with heavily seasonal demand during summer refurbishment projects, flexibility and temporary labour are essential. These proposals will make it harder to manage staffing and maintain employment during quieter periods. … We are also deeply concerned about the introduction of union involvement in SMEs. Our success depends on direct, open relationships with staff, built on trust and mutual respect. Imposing union structures into small businesses risks creating unnecessary conflict and breaking down these relationships. For SMEs like ours, this is not just an administrative burden”—

as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to—

“it fundamentally changes the culture that allows us to succeed and support our employees. … Finally, these changes will discourage hiring, particularly for young people and those without prior experience. Recently, we hired a teenager with no sales experience because he showed great attitude and potential. Under the proposed day-one unfair dismissal rights, we would not have taken that risk. These measures will make it harder for SMEs to offer opportunities to young people starting out in their careers”.

He speaks on behalf of many, if not all, SME owners and directors when he points out that the Employment Rights Bill threatens competitiveness and could even drive offshoring of labour abroad.

The Minister is closely associated with Sir Tony Blair and, I believe, served on The Tony Blair Governance Initiative. Labour’s plans to strengthen workers’ rights risk harming jobs and hurting growth, as Sir Tony Blair has personally warned. His former think tank said that the controversial day one protections against unfair dismissal would make it more expensive and riskier to hire workers. The Tony Blair Institute said that the “extreme”—its word, not mine—reforms threaten to undermine the critical strength of the British economy. It says that they would erode business confidence to hire and ultimately undermine growth. It is not too late. I urge the Government to reconsider.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.

On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.

We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.

There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.

On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.

I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.

On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.

The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

15:58

Division 1

Ayes: 296

Noes: 147

16:10

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

120C: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

120D: Schedule 3, page 191, line 13, at end insert—
“(6) Before making—
(a) the first regulations to be made under subsection (4), and
(b) the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5)(b),
the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

120E: Schedule 3, page 191, line 27, at end insert—
“(5C) Before making the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B and I will also speak to Motions E, E1, F and F1. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action, ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver. I thank all Members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response, wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expected, but I would like to make it clear to the House that none of the amendments tabled by the Government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor their intended impact, which is, I repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.

On Motion B, relating to Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E tabled by the Government in the other place, we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired—that is the principle we are addressing. The Government have listened to stakeholders and tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which ensures that the Government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensure that it is practical and proportional.

To reiterate what was said in the other place, day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. That is what this Bill is about. A six-month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job.

As we have said from the start, the implementation of day-one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the Bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability. The Government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in terms of the cost of its implementation and operation.

Motion F and Amendment 62C, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action; they only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining that settles disputes—and that is our commitment in this Bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth. The repeal of the 50% turnout threshold also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, and we should not forget that.

16:15

However, we recognise concerns on turnout, and I am grateful for the conversations I have had with noble Lords opposite, including, of course, my noble brother. It is absolutely right that we address those concerns. That is why we tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, such as electronic balloting, and the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. That will be the test of removing that 50% threshold, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will understand our commitment to ensure there is effective turnout.

Motion E and Amendment 72C tabled by the Government in the other place relate to political funds, and Motion E1 relates to the amendment in lieu of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I start by thanking the noble Lord for his engagement with me on this area, particularly in ensuring that we both understand our respective positions. However, I think I made it clear to him that we cannot accept his latest amendment in lieu, which effectively retains something similar to the arrangements in the 2016 Act, as members will be deemed to be a contributor to the political fund only if they opt into making these contributions, forcing members to make a choice to either opt in or opt out on the application forms, otherwise preventing them from joining a union if they do not do so. That is an additional burden on unions. In the Bill, we are simply returning to the situation as it was prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. The noble Lord’s amendment would also block the Government’s delivering on the commitment to repeal that Act. We are reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before the passage of the 2016 Act, including that operated during the Thatcher and Major Administrations.

I reiterate, as we have in previous debates, that we are not removing choice. New members who opted in are doing so on the basis that they are actively joining a voluntary organisation that has structures to determine policy and action, and a political fund that has already been established via a democratic ballot of its members. Once part of the union, these members have control over how the political fund is used through the same democratic structures, including on questions of union affiliation or financial support to political parties. That is absolutely clear. We have been very clear, too, to be careful to draft the Bill to ensure that, at the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to that political fund.

They can do this when joining or at any time afterwards. The same form will make it plain that opting out has no negative bearing whatever on any aspect of their union membership. These requirements for application forms must be set out in the rules of the unions that operate a political fund, and union rules are subject to approval from the certification officer. Exercising the right to opt out will not be onerous. The Bill specifies that union members will be able to provide an opt-out notice in various forms, including by post, email and completion of an electronic form—all the modern, speedy ways of communication that we now expect. These options for opting out must also be included in the rules of the union.

The Government also tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which takes into account how opt-out notices would take effect to ensure that unions can process these opt-out notices as quickly as possible. Under Amendment 72C, an opt-out notice will now have effect either on 1 January of the year after it has been provided or on a day specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of these dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility under the legislation to act more quickly and process a member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. We are committing to engage with unions directly to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices will be honoured as swiftly as practically possible. I beg to move Motion B in the name of my noble friend Lady Lloyd.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to

“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.

The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:

“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.


Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that

“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.

Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:

“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.


Spot on.

To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.

Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:

“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.


Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.

The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.

Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:

“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.


These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.

As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.

I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.

The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.

On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that

“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.

He said that the BMA

“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,

and that:

“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.


Those are fairly damning words.

According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.

It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.

16:30

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion B1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.

My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.

Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid

“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 975.]

That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.

I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.

I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:

“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”


There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.

My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.

I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.

In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would

“restore balance and fairness in union operations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 958.]

But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?

The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?

The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.

I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.

First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.

I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?

Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.

Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.

The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.

Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:

“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.


We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.

Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.

There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.

For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not

“needlessly put employers off hiring”.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.

The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.

16:45

As we know, as drafted, the Bill would abolish a qualifying period altogether. The rationale behind that is clear and we will support the noble Lord in the event that that Motion is put.

We also heard a compelling speech from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that I will not attempt to improve on, but the Minister should listen to what he said about bringing this back into the political arena, because once the political pendulum is pushed, it can swing back. That is worth bearing in mind.

Finally, Motion F1 reinstates the requirement that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% vote. This is something we have supported in the past and we will continue to.

I return very briefly to Motion B1. To make jobs pay, as we have said, there need to be jobs. We learn that half the jobs lost since this Government came to power were for workers under 25—the very people who the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe, talked about. Their future will not be helped—indeed, it will be hindered—by the Bill, nor will the millions on benefits the Government seek to move into employment. That is the 21% inactive that I talked about in the first group. I hope that noble Lords can help common sense prevail by voting today and supporting these amendments.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.

There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.

This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the Army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.

Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.

Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have had many days of debate in Committee and on Report, so I want to bring matters to a conclusion. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. The Government will ensure that employers can operate a statutory probationary period to assess new hires. That is exactly what will be in the Bill and what we will consult on. We are committed to consulting on the light-touch approach to the probationary period, and we have made that clear at each stage of the Bill.

Our reforms to the labour market are critical for growth, because low productivity is our biggest problem in this country. How do we ensure that we motivate good employers? I have correspondence from think tanks, such as the Tony Blair Institute, on protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one of employment. They say that employers could respond to this by improving their people management—a vital ingredient to productivity—which could boost labour productivity. This must be one of the benefits that comes from job mobility. These are issues that we discussed in Committee, so I do not want to go on.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, raised the issue of convictions. I have repeatedly said that, currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The two-year qualifying period applies, making it an unfair dismissal claim in those circumstances, which is what the Conservatives have put.

I appreciate, as I said to the noble Lord opposite before, that the Conservatives have been on a journey from day-one rights to six months, 12 months and two years—and they are now back to six months. I urge them to think about going that one step further. Most employment law has been subject to those statutory instruments and codes of practice, because we do need to respond to them. It is incredibly complicated, and we cannot simply put it in the Bill.

The impact assessment is there. If nothing else happens then of course there will be a danger, but the point I am making is that this is about creating a fairer and better workforce, where we encourage employers to set the best practice so that we have a situation where productivity is increased. What are we afraid of? I believe that no one in this Chamber supports unfair dismissal. We are talking about is ensuring that everyone who is employed can have that basic human right. Therefore, it is absolutely important.

The whole point—I will repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—is that, as we have said from the start, the implementation will be done with a light touch. There will be a power in the Bill to modify the test for when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period. In response to all the issues that noble Lords raised in Committee and on Report—such as whether we are getting rid of the probationary period or, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked, whether we are inhibiting employers—the answer is no; we just want it done properly and fairly. That is not an unreasonable demand in this modern age.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there has indeed been a burden on the tribunal system because of unfair dismissals, as we have seen the cost of that. We recognise the volume of cases going to both ACAS and the employment tribunal, and the Government will extend the ACAS early conciliation time from six weeks to 12 weeks from 1 December, to allow it to manage and deal with the demand for early conciliation services. DPT is also providing additional financing immediately to recruit 29 additional conciliators, ensuring that ACAS can deal with that. Therefore, we are responding to those issues.

The BMA strike ballot was under the conditions that the noble Lord talked about, but that has not stopped the dispute. What will stop it is having proper negotiations, and that is what the Health Minister is focused on ensuring happens. Legislating to somehow undermine ballots is not the answer. We want to ensure that unions are representative and that their ballots are too. We want to ensure that they have a modern way of balloting, to ensure that we increase participation. That will be the key to future fair and open collective bargaining.

I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on political funds. He knows—I have incredibly strongly made this point to him—that a trade union is not a company and is not offering services. It is a democratic body. There are collective decisions. If a trade union makes a resolution at its conference to support X or Y policy, that is the collective decision. People can opt out of that collective decision by leaving the trade union—and many do. If a union starts spouting things that are not representative of its members, then the members will walk. It is not compulsory to be a member of a trade union. However, it is a collective body making collective decisions.

The noble Lord said, “We want to avoid pendulum swings”. I admire the work that he did on his committee, which ensured that there was a soft landing for a decision made by the then Government in 2016 to break a consensus that had been in existence from 1945. We are trying to return to that consensus, in order to recognise that trade unions are an important part of our democracy. I have said before that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society. We all need to be challenged, and that is what this is about—collective decisions.

Whether the noble Lord thinks so or not, the fact is that his current amendment basically maintains the processes of 2016. I have engaged in discussions with him. I think most trade union leaders recognise that the world has changed. When I first joined a trade union, in the early 1970s, it required us to write a letter. The only information about contracting out was contained in the rulebook. Not many people read the rulebook. We now have online facilities—email—and the possibility of someone exercising their right to opt out. Of course, the reasons for opting out are not just political; they can be religious. That has been part of the consensus since 1945.

17:00

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has a strong view about this, but, if we can make progress in the future, it will be on the basis of understanding that collective responsibility and ensuring that people’s ability to opt out—to contract out—is properly transparent and acted upon speedily, which is why we put that amendment down in the other place.

I hope the noble Lords will understand that we have tried to respond to the cases. On the threshold, it is very clear, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his Motion—and indeed all his Motions. We have said that we will not implement that change without absolutely ensuring that the issue of turnout is properly addressed through members being able to vote not just by post but through other methods. I have banged on long enough, so I hope we can respond to this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.

I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.

17:03

Division 2

Ayes: 309

Noes: 150

17:15

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.

48C: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 48B.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion C1.

17:16

Division 3

Ayes: 298

Noes: 157

17:28

Motion D

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.

60D: Page 60, line 23, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

60E: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) section (Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways) (guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways);”

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.

The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.

By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.

It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.

As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support and thanks to the Government for this amendment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very kind words. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the Government, myself and my colleagues. This amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, who will not have to worry about breaching any legislation. That said, let us choo-choo along and I beg to move.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.

72C: Clause 59, page 87, line 10, after “case,” insert “the earlier of—
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

[Lord Burns]

Leave out from “disagreed” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72; and do propose Amendments 72D to 72H in lieu—

72D: Clause 59, page 86, line 24, leave out from “fund),” to end of line 25, and insert, “for subsection (1)(ca)(i), substitute “a requirement for the person to make a choice (without which the application to join the union cannot be processed) between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund, and””

72E: Clause 59, page 86, leave out from beginning of line 28 to end of line 9 on page 88, and insert—
“84 Contributions to political fund from union members
(1) It is unlawful to require a member of a trade union to make a contribution to the political fund of a trade union if the member has not chosen to become a contributor.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a member of a trade union is deemed to have chosen to become a contributor to the political fund of the union if they—
(a) are an existing contributor to the political fund immediately before the date on which section 59 of the Employment Rights Act 2025 comes into force,
(b) have chosen to be a contributor under the provisions of section 82(1)(ca)(i) or subsection (5), or
(c) have chosen to become a contributor at a later date by submitting a political fund contribution change form under subsection (8).
(3) A trade union must give a political fund contribution consent form to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the day after the day on which a political resolution is passed by the members of the union under section 73.
(4) A “political fund contribution consent form” is a form which requires the person to make a choice between being a contributor to the fund or not being a contributor to the fund.
(5) Any member who is issued with a political fund contribution consent form under subsection (3) shall only be deemed to be a contributor if they have returned the form indicating that they wish to be a contributor.
(6) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund at any time.
(7) A member of a trade union may change their choice about whether to contribute to the political fund by completing a political fund contribution change form provided by their union and—
(a) delivering it (either personally or by an authorised agent or by post) at the head office or a branch office of the union;
(b) sending it by email to an address that the union has told its members can be used for sending such notices;
(c) completing an electronic form provided by the union, and sending it to the union by electronic means in accordance with instructions given by the union;
(d) by such other electronic means as may be prescribed.
(8) A political fund contribution change form takes effect at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is given.
84A Information to members about changing their choice on contributing to political fund
(1) A trade union must give a political fund contribution change notice to each member of the union within the period of eight weeks beginning with the end of—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which a political resolution is passed, and
(b) each successive year,
unless during that previous year the political resolution is rescinded or otherwise ceases to have effect.
(2) A “political fund contribution change notice” is a notice stating that—
(a) each member of the union has the right to change whether they are a contributor to the political fund of the union, and
(b) a member may exercise that right by completing a political fund contribution change form under section 84.
(3) A political fund contribution change notice must be given in accordance with rules of the union approved for the purpose by the Certification Officer.
(4) In deciding whether to approve those rules, the Certification Officer must have regard in each case to the existing practice and character of the union.”

72F: Clause 59, page 88, line 25, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) The amendments made by subsection (3) apply only after the end of the transition period.
(5) In subsection (4) “the transition period” means a period of not less than 12 months, starting on the day on which this section comes into force, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5A) Before making regulations under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Certification Officer, and
(b) all trade unions that have a political fund.
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

72G: Clause 59, page 89, line 2, leave out “84(1)” and insert “84(2)”

72H: Clause 59, page 89, line 6, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:35

Division 4

Ayes: 302

Noes: 135

17:47

Motion F

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.

62C: Clause 156, page 151, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion F1.

17:49

Division 5

Ayes: 295

Noes: 150