Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, and to be able to congratulate her on her fascinating maiden speech. She has a long and successful background in the Civil Service, and she described today some of the things that have affected that experience. My message to Ministers is that they would be well advised to take her advice when it comes to how to get the best out of civil servants, because she has been remarkably good at it.

I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, when she was running the propriety and ethics function within government. I was chairing a commission investigating whether the Freedom of Information Act was working as intended. I have to say that the group of journalists who spent their time looking at FoI stories regarded her as the most powerful obstacle in their career—and that was before she was in the public eye. Maybe she wishes she might have stayed there. Instead, she became known everywhere for her forensic talents, which were brought to bear on the “partygate” scandal. There was a period when it appeared that no politician could appear on television and face a question without answering, “That is an issue for Sue Gray”. She did not seek the job; it was thrust upon her. She carried out that task with great skill and courage. She is a person of immense integrity and a delightful colleague, and she will be a very valuable Member of this House.

I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. Somewhere, I have a photograph of myself with Manny Shinwell in County Durham, aged 16 or thereabouts. I have very fond memories of that occasion.

I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. He swells the ranks of Members of this House—a very small group—who have families who support Queens Park Rangers. He is very welcome. I enjoy his match reports; I doubt that the manager and the team always feel the same about them, but I suppose that is freedom of speech. I also look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and hope that she also enjoys the experience.

I will limit my comments on the Bill to the provision concerning trade union finances. Clause 59 would change the way in which trade union members pay the political levy. Under the proposal in the Bill, all trade union members will automatically pay the political levy unless they personally take the decision to opt out.

I am concentrating on this because I have been there before. In 2016, the Trade Union Bill introduced by the newly elected Conservative Government proposed to do exactly the opposite. They proposed to move to an opt-in system for political funds, with union members being required to opt in, in writing, if they wished to pay the political levy. Following the Lords Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, then the Leader of the Opposition, tabled a Motion to establish a Select Committee to consider the impact of the clauses dealing with trade union political funds. The Motion was agreed, and the committee was appointed, of which I was asked to be the chairman, and we were given a very short deadline for reporting.

The committee took evidence and came to the view that reintroducing an opt-in process for all members

“could have a sizeable negative effect on the number of union members participating in political funds”,

and that there would be a “significant reduction” in union payments to the Labour Party. The committee concluded unanimously that the opt-in system should apply to all new members—new members would be required to actively opt in to paying the political levy. However, there was disagreement within the committee on whether the opt-in should also apply to existing union members as well and whether they would remain on an opt-out basis. The majority of the committee thought that the opt-in should not be extended to existing members unless it was part of a wider reform of party funding. On Report, I tabled amendments that new members should opt in and that existing union members should remain on an opt-out basis. This was carried almost on a two to one basis in this House. Several days later, the Government accepted these amendments, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side.

Given this history, I am surprised that the new Government wish to move back to the pre-2016 position whereby all members automatically pay the political levy unless they opt out. I had hoped this issue had been laid to rest for the time being, but it appears not. I have some questions for the Minister. There is a long tradition of Labour Governments legislating for opt-out while Conservative Governments in turn legislate for opt-in. Do we really want this opt-in, opt-out ping-pong to go on with every change of Government? Do the Government really want to take the risk with the future funding of the Labour Party the next time there is a change of Government? Would it not be better to let this issue rest where it is and to maintain the compromise we reached in 2016?

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 217 relates to Clause 59 and the requirement to contribute to a political fund, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn, Lady Coffey and Lady Cash. As we know, by law, a trade union wishing to spend money on party-political activities must set up a separate political fund for financing any such expenditure.

The amendment addresses a single issue: whether new trade union members should be explicitly asked whether they wish to opt in to contributing to the union’s political fund or should automatically become contributors to the political fund unless they take action to opt out. The present position is that new trade union members become contributors to the political fund only if they give notice of their willingness to do so by submitting an opt-in notice. Additionally, every year unions must notify members of their right to submit a withdrawal notice.

Clause 59 proposes to change both conditions so that new members will automatically become contributors to the union’s political fund unless they give notice of their wish to opt out, and will be notified of their right to submit a withdrawal notice only every 10 years, rather than every year as at present.

This is a controversial issue today and one that has been debated for more than 100 years. The position on opt-in or opt-out has changed several times since trade union political funds were legalised in 1913. I am very sorry for my cough.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way? He might find an opportunity to take advantage of the water that was provided. I just wanted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making a very powerful contribution to this debate and I am going to support him in his argument. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Burns (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Burns]

147: Leave out Clause 59
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the 2016 cross-party compromise (agreed by the House without a division) whereby new members of a union contribute to the political fund only if they have actively chosen to do so. That compromise was based on the conclusions of the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, my amendment proposes removing Clause 59 from the Bill. This would maintain the current arrangements whereby members joining the union since the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 contribute to its political fund only if they give their active consent to do so. These existing arrangements stem from the compromise reached by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016. The compromise was that unions would not need to obtain active consent from existing members to continue paying into the political fund but would be able to collect the political levy from only those new members who had given their consent and made an informed choice to do so. Additionally, all members were to be reminded annually that they could change their decision.

My involvement in the issue was not because of a long-standing historical interest in political funds, I emphasise; simply, I was asked to chair that committee. In the process, I gained insights into the history of trade union political funds and the arguments for and against opt-in and opt-out clauses when individuals need to exercise a choice.

The 2016 compromise prevented the fear of a sudden and potentially significant reduction in the income of trade union political funds, which could have severely damaged the Labour Party’s finances. While the then Opposition welcomed the compromise, many Conservative Members in this House and the House of Commons were disappointed that the requirement for active consent was not extended to existing members.

Consequently, I was taken aback when I learned that the new Government wanted to abandon the compromise and revert to the pre-2016 position. This Bill proposes returning to a position where all new members make automatic contributions to political funds unless they deliberately choose not to, with reminders only once every 10 years.

During the recent debates on this Bill in Committee, several arguments were put forward from the Government Benches to justify the proposed change. I find none of them convincing. The first argument was that this was merely returning to an arrangement that had lasted between 1945 and 2016. This is a weak argument. Many things have changed since 1945, including the generally accepted view of how to treat customers fairly. It is now recognised that, in most circumstances, customers or members should give clear consent, especially in situations involving active and ongoing participation.

We know individuals could be misled by small print and bureaucratic barriers. What was acceptable in the past is now viewed differently. Automatically signing people up to spend their own money without their active consent is no longer seen as acceptable today. Requiring members to act only if they do not wish to contribute is introducing a bias in the decision which can skew the outcome—in the union’s favour, in this case. Exceptions usually are limited to situations where there is a clear public benefit or where it is proportionately expensive or bureaucratic for people to register their non-consent. I do not think either situation applies here.

It is an exaggeration to say that this was a settled issue between 1945 and 2016. The Thatcher Government closely examined requiring active consent and were dissuaded from moving to a system of active consent only by an agreement with the unions that they would provide more information about the choice available to members.

During Committee, it became clear that the second main argument for this change was a concern raised by trade unions about a decline in contributions since the introduction of the requirement for members to expressly give their consent. But surely finding that contributions are less than desired is not an ethical reason to withdraw a right to consent; it is a temptation that should be resisted, as we have seen in many walks of life. When faced with a decline in revenues, most organisations first consider how to improve their presentation. They try to make a more compelling offer, spend more time educating members about the benefits or point out that, as in this case, the financial commitment is not large.

Instead, the proposal in this Bill is to resort to obscurity, automatically making members contributors to political funds without first having their active consent. To make matters worse, the plan is to ensure that they will not be tempted to escape and will be reminded of their right to reverse their decision only every 10 years. Many of us have unwittingly been on the receiving end of this practice with things such as low-cost insurance for household devices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That is what I said.

We are simply returning to the situation as it was pre-2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that is subject to many rules. There is no such requirement on many other membership organisations.

I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton relating to Clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality. We recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. New Section 168B(2)(a) therefore provides for the broad purpose for equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties

“for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”.

In addition, new Section 168B(2)(c) makes provision for

“providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”,

and new Section 168(2)(d) makes provision for

“consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”.

Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under Section 168 of the 1992 Act, which includes time off for

“negotiations with the employer related to or connected with matters falling within section 178 … in … which the trade union is recognised by the employer”.

We believe that these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities, which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representing members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to withdraw Amendment 147.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who added their names to the amendment. I am also very grateful for the meetings I have had with the Minister. However, I am disappointed that I have failed to move her thinking in any serious way on this issue.

I welcome the support of the use of active consent in making contributions to political funds. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very good point that unions should not be frightened of giving members a clear choice. From those who have disagreed we have heard very little in the way of new arguments for ditching the 2016 compromise, other than a desire to persuade members to contribute more by relying on their inertia.

I enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I agree entirely that it is quite astonishing; as I discovered at the time of the committee, political funds were illegal prior to 1909. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the need for an agreement on party funding. The issue is: which is the right mechanism until then? Is it the 2016 compromise or the 1945 model? The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said he is worried that in 10 years’ time all members will be covered by the 2016 compromise. He will not be surprised that I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing.

I remain bewildered by the desire to go ahead with the proposal in the Bill. I do not think the compromise should last for ever, but it is surely preferable to the 1945 version. I am very disappointed that there is no appetite for finding a way of dealing with this that gives some hope that it will stand the test of time. I have heard no recognition that views on the ethics of this type of choice have moved on since 1945 and that the arrival of a digital world increases the options for dealing with this in a different way. Instead, what we have is a desire to go back to the 1945 mechanism. Therefore, I would like to seek the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Burns]

Clause 162, page 163, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, this is a tidying-up amendment and I hope it will not delay the House too long. It is consequential on the House’s decision on Report to leave out Clause 59 on members’ contributions to trade union political funds. The amendment leaves out a now redundant reference to it in the commencement clause. It introduces and involves no new issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for tabling this amendment, which I acknowledge is a simple tidying-up one, following changes made to the Bill on Report. It is non-controversial tidying-up amendment and therefore we are content to accept it.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.

We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.

It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.

Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.

I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.

I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Lord Burns]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, in July, this House agreed my amendment on trade union political funds with a large majority. The amendment would maintain a position where new members have to opt in to make a contribution to a union’s political fund. This was debated in the House of Commons and rejected. I have had a conversation with the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House about this, for which I am grateful— I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.

In the Commons, three reasons were given for rejecting my amendment; we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, make similar points. The first reason given was that it was necessary to lift the “burden” of the 2016 Act. I am sorry that giving members more autonomy and an active choice in the decision whether to contribute to a political fund is seen as a burden. If there is an administrative cost, surely the correct response should be to examine the procedures and methods within the unions that create this burden. My understanding is that today—we heard it repeated this evening—members generally communicate online with their union. This should be much more efficient than in the days of pen, forms and postage, and surely cannot be a decisive factor.

The second reason given was the familiar argument that the Government’s proposal simply returns to the long-standing precedent that has worked for 70 years. However, as I argued last time, using an arrangement whereby members are automatically opted in unless they take on the additional burden of opting out is no longer acceptable in most walks of life. In that case, members are not exercising an active choice; it is using passive inertia to reduce the likelihood that members will exercise their right to opt out.

The third reason given was that accepting the amendment would break a clear government commitment. I can find no reference to trade union party funds in the Government’s election manifesto—maybe I have missed something. I can find no mention of political funds in the paper Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay. That paper charges the previous Government with having “attacked rights at work” and says that Labour “will repeal” those measures, but in which universe is giving people the right to make a transparent and active choice about paying into a political fund attacking rights at work?

I recognise that since the 2016 Act came into force, the proportion of trade union members paying the political contribution has fallen. However, to examine the change and compare it with 2016, we have to omit the figures for Unite the Union, because it has not submitted figures for the past three years. Taking it out and making the comparison with the other unions with political funds, we see that 86% of members contributed in 2016-17 while in the most recent year for which we have numbers, that has fallen to 68%. I can understand the concern, but the real question is: what does this tell us?

For me, the most plausible explanation is that it tells us something about the decisions that members wish to make when faced with a clear choice. It is interesting that reduction in participation is not the same across all unions with political funds. I suggest that unions should ask themselves why they have failed to persuade those members to contribute to those funds, rather than relying on inertia and hoping that members will make their contribution without really considering the issue.

I want to address one further argument. Several times it has been suggested that trade unions are subject to constraints and regulations that do not apply to other organisations; for example, the National Trust. Some even question why they should be required to have a separate political fund. But to me, this overlooks a significant difference: trade unions are regulated bodies. They are protected against being sued for damages and have legal immunity for their funds in trade disputes and their core services. However, the law does not allow them to impose compulsory levies on all members to fund political representation. They are allowed to have a separate political fund but must have safeguards to protect individual members’ freedom of choice. Of course, the crux of the matter is: what do we mean by freedom of choice?

I would like to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice and avoids going through these arguments—rather bitter arguments, sometimes—with each change of Government. In my view, this means giving members a clear and equal choice when they join a union, or when that union votes to establish a new political fund. They should be required to choose between two options: do you wish to pay the fee to the political fund, or do you not wish to do so? This seems the only fair way to provide people with an equal choice.

I emphasise that I do not have a position on whether members should pay the political contribution. I am not trying to discourage them from contributing. All I am asking is that members be given a clear and equal choice that meets the transparent standards we expect today. I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:

“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.


I challenged her, and said:

“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]


The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.

On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.

My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.

In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.

The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

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

[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”.

--- Later in debate ---

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””

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Burns Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak principally to Motion B1 in my name. The Government’s introduction of a six-month qualifying period, one that can be amended only through primary legislation, was, I am happy to acknowledge, a very welcome concession and we thank the Government Benches opposite for it. Angela Rayner spoke of disruption, but the truth is that this House was simply doing what it is supposed to do and what it does best—scrutinising legislation diligently and ensuring that our small businesses and our young people retain at least some chance of building a bright future. Those are our vested interests.

However, what followed was the very opposite of proper scrutiny. Without consultation, assessment or, as far as we can tell, any precedent—and without even the courtesy of signalling the change to either House—the Government brought forward at the 11th hour a wholly new measure to abolish entirely the compensation caps for unfair dismissal. These issues had not been discussed at any earlier stage in the Bill’s passage. The constitutional implications of introducing major new policy at ping-pong are profound. This is not responsible government; it is unnecessary, inappropriate and constitutionally troubling.

Motion B1 in my name accepts almost all of the Government’s amendment. It seeks only a modest and responsible safeguard that the Government conduct a review of the compensation limits before abolishing them. I acknowledge that an impact assessment has been promised after this becomes law, but what use would that be? It would already, by definition, be somewhat redundant.

This is not obstruction. It is the bare minimum that a competent Administration should undertake. When Tony Blair increased the cap in 1999, there was consultation. When the coalition Government introduced the 52-week cap in 2015, there was consultation. Why should this Government be exempt from the same cross-party accepted standards of good practice? The Government claim that this change reflects an agreement between business groups and trade unions but I wonder whether this is true.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, was explicit. He said:

“For the employer side of the table last week ‘lifted’ did not mean ‘abolished, right now’. We agreed that the 52 week cap should go—protects ordinary workers better—as part of the deal that retained the qualifying period. We anticipated a further discussion about the future of the cash cap, too. But the decision to go for abolition, now is political”.


The Federation of Small Businesses said on Times Radio this week: “In the agreement between us as business groups and the unions, we agreed that there would be a lifting of the cap. We didn’t suggest it would be both caps abolished. So that’s broader than the agreement, and it helps a very small number of very, very rich people working for corporates”.

When those alleged to have agreed to this package say plainly that they did not agree to abolish both caps, the government rationale collapses. It is rumoured that there are minutes of these various meetings and, to clear all this up, perhaps, I ask the Minister whether that is the case and, if it is, will they place a copy of the minutes in the Library?

Let us also have a look at the possible practical consequences of this. The Government appear not to have considered even the most basic scenarios. For example, what happens when a board is faced with an underperforming CEO on £1 million or more? Today, many boards reach a clean exit. Notice is given, a payment to cover the maximum unfair dismissal award is made and a swift settlement is agreed. It allows the organisation to move on. But under an uncapped regime, the entire risk changes. Will a board now be expected to conduct a full six-month performance improvement plan, offer formal warnings, objectives, documented support and staged reviews, simply to reduce the risk of defending a seven-figure tribunal sum? In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the incentives have now changed, so we would expect behaviour to change. They will now be incentivised to use the tribunal system, even if they were not in the past.

Let us consider a particular bête noire of your Lordships’ House: the water company executives, those who have overseen sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas. Are these individuals really now to be entitled to multimillion-pound payouts for so-called unfair dismissal? Is that the policy intention? Are noble Lords opposite truly comfortable becoming the party defending corrupt water bosses, while ordinary claimants are pushed further back in the queue? This policy is a recipe for the rich and a wrecking of justice for working people.

On Motion C, we are glad that it has taken the persistence of the Official Opposition to ensure that the Government now concede the need to consult our farmers and our other seasonal businesses. After the jobs tax, the tax on family farms and the business rates increase that are crushing the hospitality and retail sectors, and with the construction sector shrinking at the fastest rate since the pandemic, it is rather vital that such industry concerns are taken seriously.

On Motion D1, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He has been entirely reasonable and constructive throughout these discussions. The noble Lord has engaged with the Government in good faith, seeking sensible middle ground rather than conflict. It is precisely because his approach is so measured that the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, opposite is so remarkable, because it was the Collins review of 2014 that argued that the old model of automatic political fund enrolment was no longer acceptable. It was the Collins review that insisted that workers must give explicit individual opt-in consent before contributing to political activity, and which championed transparency, choice and the principle that democratic legitimacy cannot rest on inertia. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins; dare I say that he is U-turning, and is possibly not the first on those Benches to do so?

In our previous debate, the Minister suggested that the recent wave of industrial action somehow demonstrates that the existing legislative framework is inadequate. The rise in strikes in 2022 and 2023 occurred against a backdrop of the sharpest inflation shock in 40 years, global economic turbulence during and after the pandemic, and the profound wage erosion that followed the peak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These are extraordinary economic circumstances, not failures of the Trade Union Act 2016. In 2017, 2018 and 2019—the first full years after the Act was implemented—working days lost to strike action fell to historic lows. In 2018, the 273,000 working days lost represented the sixth-lowest annual total since records began in 1891, according to the ONS. Industrial action in the public sector was at its lowest sustained level for decades.

I turn to recent events. Just over a week ago the BMA announced yet another round of industrial action. These strikes will undoubtedly put patients at risk and place even greater strain on our already overstretched National Health Service. Let us also recall that it was the Government’s own Health Secretary who accused the BMA of behaving like a cartel—and you cannot negotiate with a cartel. We have all heard, purely through the most reputable Westminster whispers, of course, that there may be a measure of tension within the Government on this—a hint of disagreement between the Health Secretary and other Ministers, perhaps even the Prime Minister himself. I would never suggest that Ministers are briefing against one another or that competing ambitions are shaping policy, but the murmurings grow louder by the day.

The Government have a splendid opportunity this afternoon to dispel all such unhelpful chatter. They can prove to the House, and perhaps even to themselves, that they are a united operation. They can put all doubts to rest with one simple gesture, by accepting what we are calling the Wes Streeting amendment before your Lordships today. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain firmly and unapologetically on the side of Britain’s businesses, large and small.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1. In recent years, there has been an extraordinary and significant interest in what has become known as choice architecture. This was popularised by the book Nudge and by one of its authors, Richard Thaler, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2017, partly for his work on it. One key point which is so relevant to the issues I have been raising is that he highlighted that when individuals are presented with a choice, any default option has a very important influence on their decision and should be taken into account in designing the process of choice.

My previous amendment aimed to eliminate the impact of the default option, in one direction or another, when members wish to take advantage of the right not to pay the political contribution. It proposed that new members should be required to make an active choice between two options displayed on the application form: to pay or not to pay. This would eliminate the need for a default option, and potentially reflect more closely the true preferences of members. This proposal has not found favour in the House of Commons: clearly, the Government and the trade unions with political funds want to influence the decision of members in favour of paying the political contribution. They want as many members as possible to pay the contribution, and of course I understand the motivation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Burns]

Leave out from “disagreed;” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 72J and 72K in lieu of Lords Amendments 72D to 72H; and do propose Amendments 72L to 72N and 72P to 72R in lieu of Commons Amendments 72J and 72K—

72L: Clause 59, page 86, line 24, leave out from “fund),” to end of line 25, and insert “for subsection (1)(ca)(i) substitute—
(i ) a check box allowing the member to opt out of being a contributor to the fund from the start of their membership of the union,”

--- Later in debate ---

72R: Clause 59, page 87, line 34, leave out “ten years” and insert “one year””

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened closely to the Minister and I have had several conversations with the Front-Bench team. I remain very disappointed with the determination to go back towards the 1945 arrangements. I fear that, unless we can make further progress and improve how this Bill works in practice, in time it will end badly; I cannot believe that it has a great shelf life.

I was involved in the 2016 discussions, which were very fraught and there was a lot of ill will. We compromised on that occasion with the greatest of difficulty. The chances of reaching compromise in the same circumstances on another occasion will be very difficult. I hope that, whatever further discussions take place about how this works in practice, we are going to get something that is much nearer to what I describe as a real, effective and active choice for those who wish to opt out.

However, I recognise that I have reached the end of the road on this. I got involved in this issue by accident back in 2016 and I will not press my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) withdrawn.