Employment Rights Bill

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

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

1A: Because it is appropriate for workers who meet the qualifying criteria to receive a guaranteed hours offer without having to make a request for one.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.

I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.

By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.

On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.

There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.

My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.

I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.

I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.

I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.

The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.

The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.

I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

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

Ex-offenders.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.

There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.

I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?

This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.

7A: Because it is unnecessary; the Bill already produces the effect provided for by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.

23A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

--- Later in debate ---

120A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.

47A: Because requiring employers to permit workers to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings by persons other than trade union officials or other workers would likely lead to an increase in the cost, complexity and length of such hearings.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.

I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.

The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.

I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.

Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.

Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?

It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.

They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.

It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

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

48A: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.

61A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

72A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.

There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.

I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.

I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.

I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.

I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.

62A: Because it is appropriate to remove the provision that industrial action is regarded as having the support of a ballot only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in the ballot did so.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

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

Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)

Moved by