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

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

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

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?