Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

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

[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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.

Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.