Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

The 2016 compromise was a democratic compromise that no trade unionist should be scared of. It should spur them on, rather than them complacently saying, “Fix it so we get more money and do not let the rank and file members decide”. That is anti-democratic, anti-trade union and in the interests of trade union bureaucrats, not members.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 147, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Conscious of time passing this afternoon and the fact that we have a lot to get through, I will make two points.

We debated this at some length in Committee, but it is clear that the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly affirmed that the freedom of association under Article 11—which is now, of course, incorporated into our own law—includes the right not to be forced into a political association or compelled to subsidise political causes, as well as the right to do so. To ensure that we have the right cases on the record, I note that in Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, in Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, and in Sigurjónsson v Iceland, the court found that even indirect compulsion —which is an opt-out mechanism, as one of those cases found—where individuals are financially or contractually locked into supporting ideological activity, even temporarily and regardless of how short that period may be, is incompatible with Article 11.

Worse than that, these principles have been shown, through a lot of research, to damage the well-being of employees. Union affiliation with a political party increases the perception of coercion, according to a field study conducted by Taylor and Bain in 2019. The intrusion of party-political activism into the workplace, whether through political fund default enrolment or visible partisan campaigns—or, incidentally, even just union communications—has been shown to undermine employee well-being, trust and cohesion. It impacts on mental performance, and we should note the problem that this country already has with sickness benefits. To do this and to regress to a position of an opt-out will have the most negative and wide-reaching of effects, so I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Yes, not again—we rehearsed that in Committee. However, those cases do not support the proposition that the noble Baroness advanced. The case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom concerned three railway workers, who were compelled to join a trade union against their wishes—a closed shop—and the European Court of Human Rights held that they should not be compelled to do so at the risk of losing their jobs. It had nothing to do with making political payments or being associated with a political party.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that that is what the case was about. However, one of the factors in the judgment was the absence of a refund mechanism. I recall a rather fun debate between the noble Lord and me in Committee, which I hope we will not exhaust everyone by repeating today; however, it is really important that this is clarified. Article 11 will be engaged if the measure in the Bill is done; it is regressive and wrong in law and it will be subject to legal challenge. The European court found that it engages Article 11 where there is no refund mechanism. If the Labour Party or a political fund retains the subscription for even one second, it will have engaged unlawfully with Article 11.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, the difference is that, if you are a member of a trade union, you can leave the trade union. There is no compulsion to remain a member of a trade union. If you do not like paying the political—

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Can I finish the sentence?

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene once more and then that will be it, because I do not want us to repeat the ping-pong we had between us in Committee—I am sure that we can take it outside, as they say. It is of course completely normal for noble Lords in this House to disagree at times.

I want to clarify that I am not saying that this compels someone to remain a member of a union—that is not what is happening here. The way that the Bill is drafted allows the payment to be taken by the union and provides for no refund mechanism. There is a minimum period of one month before the notification of the opt-out is received, and then a permissible further cycle of salary is allowed before the subscription is stopped. There is no mechanism for a refund. So, in any opt-out, the union keeps some of that person’s money —that is what is unlawful.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I will try to finish the point in just a couple of sentences. The point is that somebody who does not like paying the political subscription can simply leave the union. If they object to it, that is what they can do. That freedom is protected by Article 11 of the European convention and is ratified in a whole number of cases. I will not develop the argument further. I would love to take it outside with the noble Baroness. We can have a drink and go into all the cases.

I just wanted to make one further point. The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that perhaps trade unions should be barred from making political payments at all. It is an interesting argument, which nobody else has advanced. It reminds me of the point my noble friend Lord Barber made about the fact that the requirement to have a political fund, introduced in 1909, is imposed on no other organisation in this country. Companies do not have to have separate political funds, ballot their members or shareholders or answer to anybody in making a political donation. It is only trade unions that are required to hold political funds with all the paraphernalia of opting in or opting out. I am not going into that argument.

I was contemplating—I never did it, but perhaps I should have done—moving an amendment that trade unions should be relieved of having political funds at all. It was a requirement which answered the Law Lords’ decision in Osborne vs the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in 1909, eight years after the foundation of the Labour Party, to bar trade unions from funding the political party that they had just launched. If we got rid of trade union political funds, we would not be having this argument at all.