Employment Rights Bill

Report (4th Day)

16:39:00

Clause 59: Requirement to contribute to political fund

Amendment 147

Moved by

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

My Lords, my amendment proposes removing Clause 59 from the Bill. This would maintain the current arrangements whereby members joining the union since the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 contribute to its political fund only if they give their active consent to do so. These existing arrangements stem from the compromise reached by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee in 2016. The compromise was that unions would not need to obtain active consent from existing members to continue paying into the political fund but would be able to collect the political levy from only those new members who had given their consent and made an informed choice to do so. Additionally, all members were to be reminded annually that they could change their decision. My involvement in the issue was not because of a long-standing historical interest in political funds, I emphasise; simply, I was asked to chair that committee. In the process, I gained insights into the history of trade union political funds and the arguments for and against opt-in and opt-out clauses when individuals need to exercise a choice. The 2016 compromise prevented the fear of a sudden and potentially significant reduction in the income of trade union political funds, which could have severely damaged the Labour Party’s finances. While the then Opposition welcomed the compromise, many Conservative Members in this House and the House of Commons were disappointed that the requirement for active consent was not extended to existing members. Consequently, I was taken aback when I learned that the new Government wanted to abandon the compromise and revert to the pre-2016 position. This Bill proposes returning to a position where all new members make automatic contributions to political funds unless they deliberately choose not to, with reminders only once every 10 years. During the recent debates on this Bill in Committee, several arguments were put forward from the Government Benches to justify the proposed change. I find none of them convincing. The first argument was that this was merely returning to an arrangement that had lasted between 1945 and 2016. This is a weak argument. Many things have changed since 1945, including the generally accepted view of how to treat customers fairly. It is now recognised that, in most circumstances, customers or members should give clear consent, especially in situations involving active and ongoing participation. We know individuals could be misled by small print and bureaucratic barriers. What was acceptable in the past is now viewed differently. Automatically signing people up to spend their own money without their active consent is no longer seen as acceptable today. Requiring members to act only if they do not wish to contribute is introducing a bias in the decision which can skew the outcome—in the union’s favour, in this case. Exceptions usually are limited to situations where there is a clear public benefit or where it is proportionately expensive or bureaucratic for people to register their non-consent. I do not think either situation applies here. It is an exaggeration to say that this was a settled issue between 1945 and 2016. The Thatcher Government closely examined requiring active consent and were dissuaded from moving to a system of active consent only by an agreement with the unions that they would provide more information about the choice available to members. During Committee, it became clear that the second main argument for this change was a concern raised by trade unions about a decline in contributions since the introduction of the requirement for members to expressly give their consent. But surely finding that contributions are less than desired is not an ethical reason to withdraw a right to consent; it is a temptation that should be resisted, as we have seen in many walks of life. When faced with a decline in revenues, most organisations first consider how to improve their presentation. They try to make a more compelling offer, spend more time educating members about the benefits or point out that, as in this case, the financial commitment is not large. Instead, the proposal in this Bill is to resort to obscurity, automatically making members contributors to political funds without first having their active consent. To make matters worse, the plan is to ensure that they will not be tempted to escape and will be reminded of their right to reverse their decision only every 10 years. Many of us have unwittingly been on the receiving end of this practice with things such as low-cost insurance for household devices.

16:45:00

A third argument used is that trade unions are collective entities rather than businesses, and so the issue of mis-selling does not apply to them. This argument does not hold water either. Members of mutual organisations surely rightly expect to be treated with the same high standards as elsewhere. People contributing to charitable activities also expect this. Why should the unions be any different?

In my view, we should move away from the opt-in and opt-out language. First, it is confusing to members, leading to uncertainty about their rights. Secondly, it is language from a pre-digital era, when paper-based decisions required postage stamps followed by burdensome obligations on members, given the small sums involved. As I argued in Committee, we should provide a simple digitally based arrangement, where members are given an unbiased choice at the point of joining a union, requiring them to tick either the “consent” box or the “do not consent” box. Members then either consent to make a political contribution or they do not.

I therefore ask the Minister to accept my amendment, omit this clause and agree to find a solution that moves away from the language of opt-out and opt-in. We should recognise the importance of consent and design membership forms that are fit for the technology and standards of today. I cannot draft this solution myself, but the Government have the support of those who can.

I thought we had put this issue to bed in 2016. Little did I think that one of the first things a Labour Government would do would be to ditch the compromise they so readily signed up to under the previous Government. Are they content to see a change in these arrangements each time there is a change of Government? For me, that makes no sense at all. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Several noble Lords, including me, spoke at some length in Committee, so I will not repeat the powerful arguments in favour of maintaining the outcome agreed in 2016 that new members should be explicitly asked to make an active choice about whether they wish to contribute to their union’s political funds. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said about moving away from the language of opt-in and opt-out and towards discussing the principle of making an active choice. The principle of moving from the opting out of making such contributions to opting in was unanimously accepted in the report from the cross-party Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding in 2016. Support for the principle of making such an active choice has only grown in subsequent years. Opt-out has become the less preferred option, as it relies on people’s inertia and, as such, most companies and organisations offer their customers an active choice. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Cash has highlighted the potential legal issues of an opt-out policy. As such, it is astonishing that the Government would wish to revert to a policy of opting out and take such a regressive step. The compromise agreement in 2016 that subsequent opt-in would apply only to new members was a sensible and proportionate way to deal with the potential cliff edge in the reduction of funds to the Labour Party. Importantly, it ensured that, in the future, members joining a trade union would be asked to make an active decision about whether they specifically wished their money to support the Labour Party or other political campaigns. This was, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has suggested, supposed to be a lasting solution to the issue of contributions to political funds. The 2016 Select Committee report warned of the risk to parliamentary democracy if the then Government used their majority unilaterally to inflict significant damage on the finances of opposition parties. There is a danger now that the Labour Party, in order to improve its own finances by seeking to unwind the unanimously agreed principle that new members should make an active choice—this has been the case now for almost 10 years—could potentially be open to the accusation of abusing entrusted power for private gain. These are the compelling arguments in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I will end with another important observation. In Committee I listened carefully to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis—I am not sure whether he is in his place today. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his tireless and brilliant negotiations over many years on behalf of the members of UNISON. He and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, who is in his place, were formidable in their defence of their members in the negotiations with the coalition Government on the reform of public sector pensions. I totally understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that unions need political funds to run their campaigns. However—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point in Committee—it is not right that trade union leaders should be able to pursue their own political issues without the need to actively ask their members whether they are willing to fund them. People who join trade unions believe they are joining an organisation that exists to defend their rights in the workplace. Many are not paid large salaries. It is surely wrong not to ask those who can potentially least afford it to pay into a political fund without necessarily realising that they are doing so. Trade union leaders do their members a disservice by relying on their inertia; they have a duty to make the case for the use of their members’ money for political campaigns. This is another reason why I support this amendment, which makes the case for retaining an active choice so that the preferences of members can be reflected more accurately.

My Lords, I would like to correct, in a sense, the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, of the activity of his Select Committee at the time. I was a member of that Select Committee, along with my noble friend Lady Drake, representing the interests of the Labour Party. We did agree on a compromise, but it was not seen as a long-term compromise. It was seen as a holding position until we had an overall review of the financing of political parties in general. Both my noble friend Lady Drake and I made that point clearly, and it is reflected in part in the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says, we wanted to get away from the chances of having new Governments switch every few years between the opt-in and opt-out options. I agree that it needs to end, but only at a time when we take account of the way in which political parties, including the Labour Party itself, can be financed by other organisations and institutions. Unless we look at the financing of political parties as a whole, any decision by a particular Government is likely to be biased towards the interests of their own political party’s funding. I hope that this Government will set up a commission looking at political funding as a whole. Until that point, we should recognise, as we recognised at the time, that the long-term effect of removing the opt-in decision would be, in effect, to bankrupt the Labour Party. We therefore need to look at the totality of political funding, and not at unravelling this particular proposition until we have done so. To be frank, some of the ways in which the Conservative Party accepts funds without the consent of company shareholders, and in which individuals give contributions to all political parties, need examination. I would like the Front Bench to commit this Government, and I hope the other parties will also commit, to such a comprehensive review before we swing one way and the other on opt-out as against opt-in. I hope the Government can give me some comfort that they will do just that at some time in this Parliament.

My Lords, this is an issue with a long history. In 1909 the Osborne judgment ruled that trade unions could not legally use their general funds for political purposes. Subsequently, the Trade Union Act 1913 was passed by the Liberal Government led by HH Asquith to allow trade unions to establish and maintain political funds. These political funds had to be supported by a ballot of a union’s members and maintained separately from its general funds, and union members had the right to opt out of contributing without facing penalties or disadvantages. Remarkably, apart from the period from 1927 until 1946, the opt-out rights of trade union members—rather than more onerous opt-in requirements—persisted all the way up to 2016, when new trade union members were required to decide whether they wanted to opt in. This history lesson is a long way of explaining that, for well over a century, the prevailing system of regulating union members’ rights in respect of their union’s political fund has been through their individual right to opt out if that is their choice. The variation to this dominant model came in 2016 as a result of the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, chairing a Select Committee of this House convened to consider this issue. Under his skilful leadership, that Select Committee hammered out a consensus that a change should be made by moving to an opt-in decision to be made by every new member of a union on the point of joining. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, makes the argument today that the Bill should not disturb that 2015 consensus. In particular, he fears that making a change now, after a change of Government, would provide an excuse for a new Government to disturb these arrangements yet again. I must say that I do not have the confidence to anticipate the make-up of that alternative Government, let alone their inclination to tamper again with this issue. It is no criticism of the 2015 report by the Select Committee, or the decisions made by its members, to note that the agreement that was made was forged in a particular political context, with the alternative to the compromise likely to be the declared intention of the Conservative Government of the day to go for opting in right across the board, including for the millions of existing members. Not surprisingly, for trade unions that was regarded as a highly threatening possibility. The political context today is very different, and proposing returning to the opt-out model that has been so dominant for more than a century is reasonable and fair. Lightening some of the administrative burdens associated with the running of the funds is also desirable in this view. Much of the debate on this part of the Bill has centred on the role of political funds in supporting the Labour Party. That is one issue, of course, but it is not the only issue. Only 11 of the TUC’s affiliated unions also affiliate to the party and make financial contributions to it. Ten other TUC affiliates have also decided to establish political funds, as the only way they can feel confident that they will be insulated against legal challenges. Just like Labour-affiliated unions, their members see a host of issues in the political sphere in which they have an interest and want their voices to be heard, with the views articulated decided through the unions’ democratic procedures. They too have been burdened by the additional administrative requirements of the 2016 Act and will benefit from the provisions of this Bill. Looking all the way back to 2013, where I started, I wonder how it came to be decided to single out activity in the political world for this complex set of arrangements around political funds. Unions have a host of functions: they support members in collective bargaining, promote greater opportunities for skills development, represent individuals in grievance and disciplinary issues and provide legal representation when needed. Naturally, they want to play their part in civil society, in contributing to the debates in the sectors in which their members work, where they are deeply invested, and all the other issues that shape the world around us. Why this area of work for democratic organisations has to be so closely and differently regulated in an age when people can now choose to join or not is, to me, something of a curiosity. But that is not the issue before us today, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, may be prepared to reconsider and not press his amendment.

17:00:00

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 147. The compromise formula that my noble friend Lord Barber has just talked about was a very practical solution to a tricky problem in the period when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee did such good work. However, I take issue with his claim that it was some kind of permanent solution, any more than was an agreement on contracting out reached by the Thatcher Government in 1984, headed by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who I am sorry is not in his place today, with the TUC. The provisions of that meant that the unions would be obliged to notify people regularly about the right to contract out, in the union journal and on the website, along with all the kinds of things that unions communicate with members about. It is worth briefly dwelling on that. It stipulated obligations on unions, as I said—and we thought that we had a lasting settlement then, but we were wrong. In 2016, the then Government came along with a Bill to provide for general contracting in; they did not initially mention the King-TUC agreement and gave no initial examples of union abuses of it. They had made no approaches to the TUC or to any unions about things that were not quite working. The certification officer was happy with what was going on. It seemed to me that the Government at that time were either forgetting about the agreement—which they might have done, I guess, given the interval—or ignoring it. Only when I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord King, that I was going to raise the question of the agreement in this Chamber in the initial debates on the Bill did the Government embark on a frantic quest to find examples of union non-compliance, which were later challenged by the TUC. The Burns committee did its work and came up with a good deal—but why should it be regarded as permanent, any more than the TUC-King agreement was regarded as permanent? There is another problem with the Burns formula being regarded as permanent. Initially, in 2016, the bulk of union members remained contracted out only; it was only the new members that unions had to actively recruit. Of course, in the past nine years, the relative proportion of contracted-out and contracted-in members has changed considerably. If we give it another nine years, as in the period from the 2016 agreement to now, there will not be many contracted-out members left. In effect, what we will have seen is that the Burns formula in practical terms becomes a phased introduction of contracting in—and that is just not acceptable. This is not an attack on the Burns formula, far from it, but it was of its time, as was the TUC-King agreement. The only permanent solution to this historic and bitter issue—because the history that my noble friend Lord Barber spoke about is a bitter one—will be a fair agreement on the fundraising of all the political parties, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has spoken about already. I oppose the amendment.

My Lords, it will probably not surprise noble Lords that I support the amendment. This situation has cursed the whole of the trade union movement’s relations with the Labour Party for far too long. As some of you will remember, I am the president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, a non-political union that does not have a political fund. In so far as it has ever been discussed in the union executive, the unanimous conclusion has been that to have a political fund would be extremely divisive and not a path that we should go down. To some people, the solution to this situation— I will not call it a problem—is to pass a simple law saying that trade unions cannot make political donations. If we are not prepared to accept this compromise, then that is what we are drifting towards. If we look at the Labour Party accounts, we see that it gets far more money from non-trade union sources than from trade union sources. When I went through the accounts, I saw that there was one very rich lady who appeared to give more to the Labour Party than all the trade unions put together. I am not sure that she was of British nationality, either. But that is irrelevant—the fact is that political funding has got completely out of control in both parties. We need reform, but one interesting thing is that the arguments of the Labour Party appear to be very similar to the arguments of the diehard Conservatives as to why we should not abolish the hereditary peerage; namely, that we should wait for comprehensive reform. We are probably not going to get a comprehensive reform of political donations in this way. I would suggest that the compromise from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is a very good one. It has worked and has kept the peace for a long time. There has to be clear consent—to my mind, clear consent is a quite reasonable thing. Why should you not ask for clear consent before you deduct money from people’s contributions? It seems like a no-brainer to me. I would suggest that we leave things in place, adopt the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and hope that this matter will go to sleep for at least another 10 years, during which time the parties will have as much time as they like to come up with reforms. I should remind noble Lords that at the beginning of the Parliament Act 1911 on the reform of the House of Lords were the historic words “pending a full reform”. We are still told by Conservative Party Members that what is proposed by the Labour Party for the House of Lords is not a full reform. I have said, and will say it here, that we will never get one—we will never get that agreed. I would like to see reform on the amount of money that people can put into political parties. I do not think that the people who put vast amounts of money into the Conservative Party do so because they have no expectation of any sort of reward. I think that they do it because they think that the Conservative Party will deliver what they want—whether that has happened is for them to now judge. The fact is that people do not support political parties other than with the aim of changing power and of getting changes in society. My union general secretary, a certain Sharon Graham, has my full support, because for the first time in what I still think of as the T&G—my original union was AUEW-TASS—we have a general secretary who I think is fully behind the people who are paying her salary, and this is something quite different, but I think this demand is going to grow. If there was an open ballot in BALPA with a simple question, “Should we construct and set up a political fund?”, it probably would not get 10% in favour, because the whole way in which political funds have developed is not seen by the ordinary branch member as something they want to indulge in. Most of them see it as a sort of slush fund for the senior officers. I am sorry, but we have to face that and we need to get away from it. So I hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, will be accepted and that we will carry on with the admittedly unsatisfactory present system until we get this full reform that we have been asking for, although it will be a long time after I have left this place.

The speeches that have been made in this debate about an important issue are clear, and I strongly support those made on this side of the House. Because of the exigencies of where the issue arises in our consideration of the Bill, I have tabled manuscript Amendment 147A. Noble Lords may well be scratching their heads, but it is a manuscript amendment, which has been circulated separately, on a different subject, but it comes up at this point of the Bill. It has been brought to my attention by my union, Unite, and I need to declare that, but it is an issue of concern to all unions. The unions strongly support the provisions in the Bill which introduce paid facility time for equality representatives. This is an important development and it is something for which unions have campaigned for some years. However, there is concern that there are some technical problems with the provisions in the Bill, which is why I need to raise them now. We are looking at Clause 62, which creates the right for paid time off for this new initiative of equality representatives in certain circumstances. It appears to me that there is a deficiency in the Bill, in that it says they are entitled to this time off for the purpose of consultation, but it is quite clear that these representatives will also be involved in negotiating. My manuscript amendment seeks simply to add “negotiating” in front of the existing provision in the Bill that says that these equality reps are involved in the process of consultation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give a favourable response to what is essentially a technical issue, but one which I need to raise now.

My Lords, I feel in something of a time warp, because I opposed Clause 62 in Committee and tried to get it dropped, but I want to go back to the discussion we were having on Amendment 147. I support this amendment, because I genuinely think there are very good reasons why the trade union movement should not be frightened of this amendment, and I do not understand the changes that have happened. All the amendment does is to try to retain, at least notionally, control in the hands of trade union members: they should decide where they want their dues to go and whether they want them to go into a political fund. What could possibly be frightening about that? It means that, at least in theory, the trade unions will have to be kept on their toes and justify why members should opt in, and therefore not assume or assert that their union’s political activity—which, to be fair, is often far removed from rank and file workers’ interests—is on behalf of their members. It simply puts unions in a position in which they have to convince their members to opt in.

17:15:00

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, reminded us in Committee that one of the drivers of this change, and why we could not have this amendment, was the decline in funds. In fact, one noble Lord stood up and said that since this had come in, their political funds had gone down. I made an important point in asking whose fault it was. Surely it is the trade union leaders’ fault for not inspiring their members to sign up. It is important not to forget that the trade union leaders who are represented on the opposite Benches, and other trade union leaders, have an obligation to their members and are accountable to them. This is an amendment that retains control in rank and file members’ hands.

The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, asked us to consider the political context of the Burns agreement in 2016. I want us to consider the political context of today, in which there has been a huge decline in trade union membership—I would imagine that trade union leaders would be giving all their attention to that and trying to increase the number of members, if that is the aim. Within that decline, there has also been a shift in the sorts of political priorities that trade unions concern themselves with. My experience of talking to ordinary trade union members is that many of them are completely alienated from the kind of political campaigning that a lot of trade union leaders involve themselves in. People say that many trade unions seem to be obsessed with equality, diversity and inclusion. They are more akin to HR departments and corporate governance, which seem to be in lockstep with the trade unions over certain issues. They are more like a student union than a trade union.

I recommend some recess reading to noble Lords: a new report entitled Shopped Stewards: Why Today’s Trade Unions Police Speech Instead of Protecting Workers—and How To Fix It by Freddie Attenborough. Its foreword was written by former firefighter Paul Embery, who starts by noting:

“Most advances secured for ordinary workers over the generations are attributable to the efforts of trade unions”.

He is completely pro-trade union, but he goes on to argue:

“Yet I have watched with dismay in recent years as the trade union movement gradually detached itself from its historical moorings. As membership numbers began to fall, unions increasingly retreated to their public sector comfort zone”

and have adopted

“the ideology of radical progressivism”.

The trade union representatives on the other side of the House should fight hard to ensure that the political funds of their unions represent their rank and file workers, and go out and win their hearts and minds, rather than using a technocratic way of getting the money in, in defiance of the choice of their union members.

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.

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.

My Lords, the House will not want a legal argument between me and the noble Baroness.

Not again!

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.

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.

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—

My Lords—

Can I finish the sentence?

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.

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.

My Lord, I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to my own Amendments 152A and 152B. In so doing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this amendment. I remember the debate we had at that time. There is no question about it: every side of the debate compromised. I remember Ministers from the other place telling us that we had to compromise and we had to make concessions that we did not feel were right. The deal was done, and the deal still holds. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that we should do things in the round and in one is exactly right, rather than making this piecemeal change that the Bill proposes, if there are to be dramatic changes. I accept that times have moved on and that funding for the Labour Party is largely from individuals rather than from unions. None the less, if we are to make changes, then let us look at them in the round rather than observing the piecemeal change proposed in the Bill. I have to correct the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hendy. Companies cannot make donations to any political party without prior shareholder approval in the period of a year—not 10 years, but one year. That approval lasts only one year and has to be refreshed at the annual general meeting. Noble Lords are encouraged to look at the accounts of any company—certainly a public company—to see that that is the case.

That is true, but it does not require a ballot of individual shareholders. There is a vote once a year, or whenever, so that a donation can be made at the annual general meeting. It is not a ballot.

With great respect, every shareholder gets a mailed piece of paper with a box to tick—every single shareholder every single year. If that is not a ballot, what is?

Do shareholders get an opt-out facility from political donations that the company is making on behalf of the owners of the company?

They can certainly vote against it, and that happens quite regularly. The situation is exactly the reverse of the one put forward by the Benches opposite. My focus is on Clause 77, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, highlighted. It is a complicated clause. It refers us to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which was itself amended by subsequent Acts, and to the famous aforementioned Section 32ZB, which relates to details of political expenditure in the political fund. The political funds, as I think has been said, were set up to protect the unions because the law did not allow them to make donations directly, so the political fund allows donations to political parties. But this clause requires details of any political expenditure to be disclosed in the annual return to the certification officer, and that is what the Bill wants to get rid of. It was brought in as Section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016.

17:30:00

In passing, I say that, personally, I have no objection whatever to any union whose members, and the union, wish to give money to a political party. Good luck to them—why not?

In earlier debates on 10 June, the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, claimed that the information contained in the political fund was disclosed on union websites and elsewhere. That does not seem to be the case at all. In the interim period, I have looked at the websites of unions and I cannot find it. There is a requirement under Section 32A of the 1992 Act to disclose information to members, but it does not include information on specific payments from the political fund. It simply says “income and expenditure”. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said in the debate at that time:

“I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement”,—[Official Report, 10/6/25; col. 1295.]

and then moved on. I do not think that is quite right or quite the point. Indeed, she subsequently wrote to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral on 25 June—a copy of which letter is in the Library—correcting the impression given in the House, where she confirms that Clause 77

“will have the effect of removing the requirement for trade unions to include certain information about their political expenditure, as outlined in section 32ZB, in the annual returns they submit to the Certification Officer”.

So, it turns out that the situation is exactly as I set out, and Clause 77 will mean that payments out of the political fund will hereon in become hidden.

Accordingly, the payments I found looking in union accounts, such as to the Marx Memorial Library or the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, will be hidden from the people who provided those very funds—union members—let alone from the rest of us. I am not sure which Minister is replying to this, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, or the noble Lord, Lord Katz, but are they happy, as union members, that money they have contributed to a union will be paid to the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign? The noble Lord, Lord Katz, is wearing the yellow tag on his lapel, and I salute him for that, but is it appropriate that the funds of Jewish members of unions should be used to subsidise a cause that they are not comfortable with, or indeed any other cause?

We know that Unite, for example, wants to make all sorts of other payments. We know that from the material issued in May 2023 by Unite to encourage its members to vote on the political fund ballot. It makes it clear not just that it will be used to support Labour—which is perfectly proper—but that Unite’s elected executive council has complete carte blanche as to where the money is to be spent. If it gives money to a political party or to an MP, that, of course, will be disclosed in the Electoral Commission returns, but if it gives to other causes, which many of its members may be uncomfortable with, they will simply not know. It is not just Unite, of course; its accounts may not be typical, as it is having issues in connection with corruption—which, to its credit, its leadership has today recognised. But that sorry episode of alleged corruption reminds us that disclosure is all: the sunshine of disclosure is a disinfectant.

If we look at other unions, such as the FBU, we see, in 2023, expenditure on the Palestine Solidarity Campaign again and on Stop the War, and the University and College Union donating to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and Justice for Colombia. I am not quite sure what justice Colombia needs, but that is where it chose to spend its money. We will not know where it spends its money next time round. I remind noble Lords that if they do not support this amendment, all such payments will here on in remain hidden, which is why I cannot understand the resistance to these amounts being disclosed and to my amendment. I note that some of the payments from the funds are used on excellent campaigns, such as the fair tips campaign in the hospitality sector, but that could come out of the general fund quite comfortably.

In the letter of 25 June, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says:

“£2,000 of political expenditure across a calendar year is a relatively small figure.”

I agree, but there seems to be a confusion. Section 32ZB allows for sums below £2,000 not to be disclosed, which is fair enough. What we expect and wish to see is disclosure of payments above £2,000. I think she has this the wrong way round in her letter.

My subsequent amendment, Amendment 152B, refers to Clause 78, which removes from the certification officer the right to enforce annual return requirements. That gave the certification officer the power to make a declaration that a trade union had failed to comply with the Trade Union Act 2016. Why would the Government want to do that, other than being blindly led by their paymasters—or, to be fair, in the case of Unite, their former paymasters—to do the unions’ bidding?

Given the confusion from her earlier letter and the arguments I made earlier, I very much hope that this House will support my amendment. I intend to test its opinion.

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 149, regarding broad workforce support. I was born and brought up in a working-class community that was specifically built to supply workers to build aircraft for a very large organisation employing thousands of people. As a teenager, I was lucky enough to get a job there, but I worked for a contractor which was not unionised. I remember going to the works canteen on the first day, and I was asked two questions: was I a member of a union and was I a Tory? The answer was no to the first one; as to the second one, I did not quite know because I was not old enough to vote, but perhaps I did turn out to be a Tory. I was asked to leave and told that if I was not a member of a union, I could not be in the canteen, so I left. Because it was a tight-knit, working-class community, I was asked later by family, friends and relatives who worked at this factory why I did not go to the canteen. When I explained to them that I was not made welcome on the first day, they asked, “Who was it who said you couldn’t come in?” When I explained to them who it was, they said, “Oh, don’t take any notice of him, he’s a union convener”—I cannot remember the name of the trade union. Then I started to learn one or two things about trade unions. My noble friend Lord Balfe reminded me that there was a pecking order within the workforce. I learned that different trade unions represent different skill sets. I recall, because it was an aircraft factory, that if you were an electrician and a member of TASS, you regarded yourself as a superior trade unionist.

We were.

Some things have not changed. Then you had the mechanical engineers, the aircraft fitters, and so on and so forth: several different unions representing different members. I learned as a very young man that some unions are more militant than others and that a very small group of people could bring a whole aircraft plant to a halt. I recall crossing a picket line. I was not a member of a trade union, but I was a contractor. A small group of trade unionists brought the plant to a halt. I turned up to work and wanted to go through the gates, and I was barred. But I was always taught to stand up to bullies, so I insisted on going through the gates—indeed, I did walk through the gates. I can remember to this day—and it is 45 years ago—the abuse I received as I walked through those gates to work as a young teenager. I still recall it, because every time I go to a Conservative Party conference I get a very similar amount of abuse. So some things have not changed. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, rightly pointed out that trade unions are a force for good, because they look after their members in so many ways. Nobody across this House would argue with that. But the point of my amendment is that a small group of militant colleagues on the trade union side can bring the whole factory or organisation to a halt. Throughout this debate we have talked about SMEs; in this case I am talking about a very large organisation. It is the intimidation of the minority that affects the majority. Eliminating the 50% turnout threshold for strike ballots would significantly lower the bar for industrial action, allowing strikes to proceed if only a small minority of the workforce participates. This creates unpredictability and challenges for business continuity and planning, as substantial disruptions could occur based on the votes of a very limited number of employees. In sectors where products are highly perishable, including the distribution of medicines or those with just-in-time supply chains, the ease of initiating industrial action increases the risk of supply chain interruptions. Some medical products have a limited shelf life. Strikes at distribution centres could lead to critical shortages, with direct consequences for public health and patient care. For industries that rely on seasonal production cycles, such as manufacturing and distribution of vaccines, removing the threshold places the delicate timing of mandatory deliveries at risk. Even short periods of industrial action could jeopardise the ability to meet strict production targets and delivery deadlines, impacting public services and national preparedness. Lowering the requirements for strike action could deter domestic and international investors, who typically are seeking business environments with stable industrial relations frameworks. The potential for frequent or unpredictable strikes may lead to perceptions of elevated operational risk, discouraging long-term commitment across multiple sectors. The absence of a robust threshold may undermine industrial relations by encouraging strike action that lacks clear, broad-based support among employees. This could erode morale, create internal divisions and reduce trust between management and staff, ultimately affecting organisation productivity and the wider economy. I grew up in the 1970s; we do not want to go back to the 1970s.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 149A—and Amendment 149, spoken to very ably by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow. He is absolutely right about the qualifying percentage. Not long ago, I was thumbing through my copy of the Labour Party rules, as you do; the template rules of the Labour Party. I noticed that regional executive council meetings of that party have a quorum of 33% in terms of any decisions made in the deliberations of that committee. If the Labour Party is going to impose a less than 50% and certainly less than 33% marker for decisions being made internally, it is odd that it does not take a similarly robust attitude towards important decisions that affect many workers in industrial landscapes and industrial relations. Amendment 149A addresses a very perverse consequence—the decision, in terms of Clause 72, to remove proper organised supervision of industrial disputes in the industrial landscape that we have at the moment. It is pretty odd that there does not appear to be a rationale for this. It seems sensible and prudent for us to be in a position where trade union officials are responsible for ensuring that there is an orderly management of industrial disputes. No case has been made by Ministers, in Committee or at Second Reading, for why it is necessary, other than demands from the trade unions to remove that part of previous legislation.

17:45:00

On this side of the House, we have always taken the view believed, as my noble friend and others have said—and I know that we have previously debated trade union activity, right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs—that it is important for workers to be able to organise in their own interests to improve their working conditions, and pay in particular. But it seems odd that, in its haste to support the demands of the trade unions, this provision will remove proper, well-organised trade union supervision of industrial disputes. So, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, because the case has not been made, it will backfire, and you will have disorder and an acrimonious relationship in some of these industrial disputes. The Minister should think very carefully about whether, with regard to Clause 72, this is a sensible way forward to remove the provision for the proper, orderly, well-organised supervision of industrial disputes and strike action.

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I will say a word in particular about some of the amendments. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, people in the country will ask, “How can it be that, in a democracy, a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund?” That is a question about democracy in the workplace. How is it that it can go—if it does go—to one political party? I take the point about affiliated unions and the different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked as a Parliament to pass legislation that has a direct impact on the party opposite: the Government. I cannot think that there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party, but I am willing to be put wise. So, it is a sectional problem that we are dealing with. All the amendments in this group seek to tackle workplace democracy under the Bill, which would use the law to promote the powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. Some 11% of them are in private sector businesses and command practically the whole productive economy of this country, and 30% are in the public sector—so 20% overall. Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes. I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass. In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. That undermines any claim the Government make that the Bill is good for workers. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but, in this context, unless it omits Clause 59, it brings disrepute on the unions, the Government and this Parliament. Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour Government of July 2024 has in the matter of so-called rights used the Bill, and other measures, to pivot one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and work- force. That will not be regarded as a fair position in this country. I also, for the same reasons, support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to omit Clauses 77 and 78 because, in the interests of transparency, working people and trade union members need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on. The noble Lord referred to some of the political purposes that they are used for. Of course there are others, and they may be very good purposes, but surely it is in everybody’s interest that we have transparency, just as I think the certification officer should have enforcement powers. In the same vein, the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggest that the 50% threshold in a ballot for strike action should be retained. Without these safeguards, we make a laughing stock of the idea of democracy in the workplace, our economy and the whole country if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent. I do not like the totalitarian thread of the Bill. Times have moved on since the days of Herbert Henry Asquith and the time when trade unions represented working people and the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain’s economy. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed. Today we see a service economy of roughly 80% and a productive economy of goods of roughly 20%. All the amendments in this group matter, and I particularly support those to omit Clauses 59, 77 and 78 and reverse the attempt by the Government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action in a ballot.

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that that is the point of this House, and that is what we do. Well, we could have just put the tape recording from Committee on and then gone to the Tea Room for a tea and played it for the same amount of time. Almost the same number of exponents were expressing the same views again and again. I will try to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. We support his amendment. The reason for that is that the opt-in system is the best because it maximises choice and transparency for individuals and retains political funds. They need to understand what their funds are being used for. Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would retain the 50% ballot threshold required for trade unions undertaking industrial action. The Bill would remove this threshold entirely, meaning that a trade union could vote for strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We tabled similar amendments in Committee, and we have concerns about the democracy and democratic integrity of strike action ballots, which this Bill could potentially harm. We also believe that the current threshold for being able to undertake strike action is suitable and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. If a Division is called on this amendment, we will also support it.

Hear, hear!

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will say “Hear, hear” no more because we cannot support Amendment 149A, which is a new amendment that proposes removing Clause 72. I will tell the House why we cannot support it. On Monday I supported the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, when we were very critical of the Government for tabling amendments on Report. People nodded wisely and said that it is not a good thing to do, yet this amendment was tabled today or yesterday. It has had no time for discussion or debate. It has had no time for people to understand its nuances. We know that it takes a big chunk out of the Government’s manifesto pledge Bill, and that does not seem fair to me. In our view, legislation should be done through constructive amendments. If you do that, you end up with a compromise, whether it is through ping-pong or by persuading the Minister to change their point of view. It is almost like taking the sledgehammer again, and that is not good politics. It is not good for the House, and it is not good for Members. Lots of Members come into these debates, not all the time, and try to get a flavour of what is going on. They might hear that Amendment 149A, which sounds fairly reasonable, has been put forward. It is not fairly reasonable; it takes an enormous chunk out of the Government’s Bill, and that cannot be right for democracy. I have criticised Ministers many times, but we should be mindful that it is in the manifesto and move legislation via amendments rather than trying to remove huge chunks of legislation. On that basis, we will not support Amendment 149A.

My Lords, on balance, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to Amendments 148, 149A, 149ZA and 150 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. Before I do that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his common- sense amendment. We think political contributions must always be a matter of choice, not a default. That seems to us a fair and democratic principle, and the Government ought to listen. I was particularly pleased to see that the Attorney-General was in his place to listen to the excellent arguments advanced by my noble friend Lady Cash, which all pertain to international law. I hope he was paying attention. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. I turn to Amendment 148. On 8 July, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, remarked rather pointedly that despite the fact that the majority of resident doctors did not vote for strike action, the BMA is now preparing for strike action and it is completely unnecessary. Who can blame him? Strikes are happening under the existing law, and now this Government propose to remove the 50% threshold, the very last democratic safeguard that ensures that strikes have substantial backing. What would that do? It would significantly lower the bar for strike action and allow a smaller minority to cripple vital public services. It is worth bearing in mind that it is public services we are talking about because that is where the bulk of union members are. One has to wonder whether the Government agree with their own Health Secretary. If they do, why are they proposing this? If they do not, will Mr Streeting be invited to correct his error on the record? Do the Government share the disappointment that he expressed on 8 July about the BMA’s strike action or was that simply a performance for the cameras, a convenient public relations stunt, while others quietly dismantle safeguards and seek to make extremists more powerful? On Amendments 149A and 150A, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his words. Earlier this month, Norman Tebbit, Lord Tebbit, died after a long period of illness. One of his enduring legacies was his role in turning around an unemployment crisis that peaked at 11.5% in 1982. Thanks to the reforms introduced on his watch, the rate fell sharply thereafter. The success was later acknowledged even by the Blair and Brown Governments, who accepted the new consensus, a fair balance between workers’ rights and the flexibility that businesses need. It was the late Lord Tebbit who warned us that we do not intend to see again the scenes of intimidation, mass picketing and political strikes that disfigured our country in the 1970s. That warning remains as relevant today as it was then. Supervision of picketing is an essential safeguard. It ensures that industrial action remains peaceful, lawful and accountable. Removing these provisions, as the Government propose, risks returning us to the chaos and intimidation of the past, as described so ably by my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow. Amendment 149ZA is crucial to protect airlines from unfair financial risk caused by conflicting notice periods. This was originally tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. He raised a timely and important issue. As he did not retable the amendment for Report, we did because, frankly, the Committee debate was very late, it was truncated, and the Minister’s response was inadequate. I refer noble Lords to col. 1342 of Hansard on 10 June for the detailed arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, but in essence they are that, under current law, airlines must give at least 14 days’ notice of industrial action to avoid costly compensation claims under passenger rights legislation—namely, UK261—unless there are extraordinary circumstances, and a ruling of the European Court of Justice in 2019 made it clear that a strike by an airline’s own staff is not considered an extraordinary circumstance. The amendment would therefore simply protect airlines from having to pay hundreds of millions in compensation for cancellations caused by strikes. Reducing the notice period to 10 days would expose airlines to up to four extra days of compensation liability and a serious and unavoidable financial burden that would inevitably be passed on to passengers, making family holidays even more expensive for working people. The amendment would ensure that the 14-day notice period remained for industrial action affecting airlines, and it would align industrial relations law with passenger rights and protect vital UK businesses from crippling— I will be charitable and say probably unintended—costs. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Katz, argued that this would represent a sectoral carve-out, but that is not a logical argument as the sector is governed by a rule that does not apply to any other. It is therefore entirely consistent with a level playing field. It is the contradiction in legislation that puts airlines at a disadvantage. Finally, I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Leigh about seeking to maintain the requirement that trade unions should report their political expenditure in their annual returns. I shall support him too, should he wish to call a Division.

18:00:00

My Lords we have had an extensive debate that indeed feels a bit like another day in Committee, but I know we all want to move on so I will try to be as brief as I can. Amendment 147 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I thank him for the ongoing engagement that we have had on the topic of political funds throughout the progress of the Bill in this House. In drafting the Bill, we have of course been mindful of the lessons learned in the conclusions of the Burns committee on trade union political funds and political party funding. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Monks, Lord Barber and Lord Whitty for reminding us that the compromise at that time was not intended to be a long-term arrangement, particularly because of the imbalance then, which still exists, in political party funding, which has yet to be addressed. In the meantime, the Government believe that the 2016 Act places unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiating, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We are seeking to redress that balance and remove the burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. This is why the repeal of the 2016 Act was a manifesto commitment. By reverting back to the automatic opt-in for new members, we are simply returning to a long-standing precedent that was altered by the previous Government through the 2016 Act. Prior to that, automatic opt-in was in place for 70 years, even during the Thatcher and Major Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, raised the issue of Article 11. The Government are confident that our measures relating to political funds comply with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 11 provides the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. Unlike subscriptions in the private sector, when we speak about unions and their political funds we are ultimately talking about voluntary organisations whose members have willingly come together to represent their collective interests. Political funds are one mechanism that unions can utilise to further their shared goals. Political funds are not just about affiliation to political parties; they can allow unions to participate in and campaign 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 on issues that they face at work.

BALPA, the union of which I am president, does all those things without a political fund.

Political campaigning, which the noble Lord will know is clearly spelled out already in the legislation, requires some of these issues to be paid for out of the political fund, Indeed, my own union, UNISON, operates two separate political funds, as my noble friend Lord Prentis explained in Committee, one of which relates to the party-political affiliation and the other to the wider campaigning role. Of course, not all political party payments have gone to the Labour Party; they have gone to other parties and candidates as well. The payments must be established through the democratic structure of the union. Those same structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how those political funds are utilised. Joining a trade union is an informed decision and members will be made aware of their right to opt out of political fund contributions. Indeed, we have been careful to draft the Bill to ensure that new members will continue to be notified of their right to opt out on the membership form when they join the union. In line with the recommendation in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the membership form will also have to make it clear that opting out will not affect other aspects of their membership. Those changes should help to address concerns that trade union members were not always aware of their right to opt out of the political fund under the system that existed before 2016. If members wish to exercise that right to opt out, they are free to do so at any time. We are not altering the arrangement for existing union members. If they decided to join a union with the knowledge that they would be opted out of political fund contributions, they will continue to be opted out once the Bill passes. As I hope I have explained, automatic opt-in will reduce the administrative burden on unions while still allowing members to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. I turn to Amendment 148 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 149 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation—a framework that delivers productive and constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandates. The 50% threshold is a high bar and is not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament and votes for MPs and local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold but are not thereby considered any less legitimate. Indeed, most local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%—I am sure that a number of noble Lords who have previously been councillors have been elected on a less than 50% turnout—and nor, for the most part, do votes at general meetings of companies require any turnout threshold. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot, and they will have their voices heard in the normal way. The Government have been clear about our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, including industrial action ballot thresholds, but the amendments would prevent the Government delivering on that manifesto commitment. I was pleased to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for upholding our manifesto commitments, and I will remind him of that when we come to vote on these amendments. The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support. As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about the doctors’ strike. The Secretary of State has held constructive meetings with the BMA resident doctors committee to try to avert strike action by discussing how we can work together to improve the working lives of resident doctors. However, the BMA RDC has refused to engage in further discussions and has instead chosen to proceed with its planned strikes. Our view is that strikes have a serious cost to patients, so once again we urge the BMA to call them off and instead work together to improve members’ working conditions and to continue rebuilding the NHS. On Amendment 149ZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the Government have made it clear that we do not intend to make sectoral carve-outs for the limitations and conditions that apply to industrial action. That is demonstrated by our repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action ballots, both of which remove the further conditions on industrial action that currently exist in some public services. Ensuring that statutory notice periods for industrial action are consistent across every sector will ensure that the rules are straightforward and clear to all parties involved in industrial action in every circumstance. It is then for employers in each sector to be mindful of these rules and manage their industrial relations and businesses accordingly. I also want to make it clear that repeal of the 14-day notice period forms part of our manifesto commitment to reverse the Trade Union Act 2016. Following the outcome of our public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations, we decided that a 10-day notice period for strikes was the appropriate balance between giving employers time to prepare and upholding the right to strike. It is also a minimum, not a maximum, period and employers will be able to plan for industrial action long before receipt of a notice. Our approach is not an outlier. The UK will still provide one of the longer industrial action notice periods in Europe. Many European countries have shorter or no notice requirements on industrial action, while also requiring airlines to comply with the EU version of Regulation 261/2004. We are aware that under Regulation 261/2004 an airline may be liable to pay passengers compensation if it cancels a flight less than two weeks before its scheduled departure. But even under the current 14-day industrial action notice period, in practice airlines may therefore still be liable to pay compensation if they need to cancel flights due to industrial action. I turn to Amendments 149A and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. This is why we are substantially repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 and fixing the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in the meantime. Legislation governing picket lines is, of course, essential and, to be clear, we are repealing only those additional measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Substantially repealing this in the Act is also a manifesto commitment, while other legislation relating to picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location, it must be peaceful and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. The existing Code of Practice on Picketing, once updated to remove the requirement for a picketing supervisor, will continue to support the legislation on picketing. Together these are sufficient to ensure the operation of peaceful picketing. The Government’s impact assessment on the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016, published in October 2024, set out the expected impacts of the removal of the requirement for a picketing supervisor and is available for all to read. The assessment shows limited evidence of serious problems on picket lines prior to the introduction of the 2016 Act, and there remains limited evidence of problems on picket lines in more recent years. The assessment concluded that it is therefore unlikely that the removal of the additional legal requirement to appoint a picketing supervisor will have a noticeable effect on the impact of picketing during disputes. There is nothing new to add to that assessment; we are simply returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016 when it was working well and understood by all parties. I turn to Amendments 152A and 152B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. I think on previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded us of his role as treasurer of the Conservative Party, although he did not on this occasion. Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would—

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that positions that do not require financial remuneration do not need to be declared. I did, in fact, make that declaration at Second Reading and in Committee and no further declaration is required.

I think that is the point I was making; I was just reminding the noble Lord. He could have reminded us on this occasion, given that a number of his points were very much party-political ones. Clauses 77 and 78 of the Bill, which these amendments would omit, remove burdensome requirements and regulation on unions imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. This red tape works against unions’ core role of negotiating and dispute resolution, which is why we made a manifesto commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. In relation to Clause 77, trade unions will continue to submit an annual return to the certification officer; however, the amount of information required in that return will be less.

18:15:00

Annual returns will continue to include information relating to the governance and finance of the trade union, including the management of its political funds, as they have done for many years, and the certification officer will continue to be required to make this information available for public inspection. The requirement for unions to report specific details of political expenditure is unnecessarily burdensome, and unions are already accountable to their membership for their political expenditure.

Indeed, we are not changing the requirement on unions to provide an annual statement to members that specifies, among other things, the total income and expenditure of the union’s political fund. In relation to Clause 78, there is no need for the certification officer to retain powers to investigate requirements that will no longer exist when this Bill is passed. The certification officer—

Can the Minister be quite clear with us in that case? She said that unions will be required to report to the certification officer gross amounts of income and expenses. Can she be crystal clear that there will be no requirement to disclose expenses made within the political fund to any organisation?

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. The certification officer will continue to be able to enforce remaining annual return requirements—

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.

That is what I said. We are simply returning to the situation as it was pre-2016. I would add that the unions are already specifically regulated in the requirement to have a separate fund for spending on political purposes that is subject to many rules. There is no such requirement on many other membership organisations. I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton relating to Clause 62 on equality representatives. Trade unions have long fought for equality. We recognise that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. New Section 168B(2)(a) therefore provides for the broad purpose for equality representatives to take paid time off for carrying out duties “for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”. In addition, new Section 168B(2)(c) makes provision for “providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”, and new Section 168(2)(d) makes provision for “consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”. Finally, equality representatives may also be eligible for time off under Section 168 of the 1992 Act, which includes time off for “negotiations with the employer related to or connected with matters falling within section 178 … in … which the trade union is recognised by the employer”. We believe that these measures are broad enough to include a range of activities, which encompass collective bargaining, negotiating with employers and representing members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burns, to withdraw Amendment 147.

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who added their names to the amendment. I am also very grateful for the meetings I have had with the Minister. However, I am disappointed that I have failed to move her thinking in any serious way on this issue. I welcome the support of the use of active consent in making contributions to political funds. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very good point that unions should not be frightened of giving members a clear choice. From those who have disagreed we have heard very little in the way of new arguments for ditching the 2016 compromise, other than a desire to persuade members to contribute more by relying on their inertia. I enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I agree entirely that it is quite astonishing; as I discovered at the time of the committee, political funds were illegal prior to 1909. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the need for an agreement on party funding. The issue is: which is the right mechanism until then? Is it the 2016 compromise or the 1945 model? The noble Lord, Lord Monks, said he is worried that in 10 years’ time all members will be covered by the 2016 compromise. He will not be surprised that I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing. I remain bewildered by the desire to go ahead with the proposal in the Bill. I do not think the compromise should last for ever, but it is surely preferable to the 1945 version. I am very disappointed that there is no appetite for finding a way of dealing with this that gives some hope that it will stand the test of time. I have heard no recognition that views on the ethics of this type of choice have moved on since 1945 and that the arrival of a digital world increases the options for dealing with this in a different way. Instead, what we have is a desire to go back to the 1945 mechanism. Therefore, I would like to seek the opinion of the House.

1|18:21|290|143|Division on Amendment 147|Amendment 147 agreed.||0|0

18:33:00

Clause 62: Facilities for equality representatives

Amendment 147A not moved.

Clause 65: Industrial action ballots: turnout threshold

Amendment 148

Moved by

148: Clause 65, page 96, line 23, leave out subsection (2) Member's explanatory statement This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to probe whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.

My Lords, time and again we hear about workplace democracy from the Government Benches, and then they introduce this. So yes, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

2|18:34|271|138|Division on Amendment 148|Amendment 148 agreed.||0|0

18:45:00

Amendment 149 not moved.

Clause 71: Notice to employers of industrial action

Amendment 149ZA not moved.

Clause 72: Union supervision of picketing

Amendment 149A

Moved by

149A: Leave out Clause 72

I would like to test the opinion of the House.

3|18:46|198|198| |Contents 198; Not-Contents 198.||0|0

My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Amendment 149A disagreed.

18:56:00

Amendment 150

Moved by

150: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause— “Right to take industrial action(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) In section 220 (peaceful picketing)—(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute “a place of work”;(b) omit subsections (2) to (4).(3) Omit section 224 (secondary action).(4) In section 244 (meaning of “trade dispute” in Part V)—(a) in subsection (1), for “a dispute between workers and their employer which relates wholly or mainly to” substitute “a dispute between workers and one or more employers connected with”; (b) in subsection (5), for “a worker employed by that employer” substitute “a worker employed by an employer”.” Member's explanatory statement These amendments would remove the provisions (in sections 224 and 244) that render unlawful all forms of ‘secondary’ industrial action including the rights of pickets to picket places of work other than their own.

My Lords, this amendment is a reproduction of the amendment on secondary action that I moved in Committee. Of course, your Lordships are far too polite to give expression to the collective groan that would otherwise emanate from all sides of the House. I move the amendment again for two reasons—first, because the issue raises important factors of which I shall remind your Lordships briefly in a moment and, secondly, because support for it from various unions and resistance to it by the Government in Committee, and, I surmise, today on Report, give the lie to the repeated allegation that this Government are a puppet manipulated by the trade unions. The amendment contains six measures aimed at restoring statutory protection for solidarity action, which subsisted between 1906 and 1984. As before, I am grateful for the support of ASLEF, the Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union, the BMA, the Fire Brigades Union, the RMT, the University and College Union and Unite. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I shall not rehearse the arguments that I made in Committee, save to remind the House of two. First, solidarity action is an inherent aspect of freedom of association, which is the jurisprudential and international underpinning of trade union freedom and, at a more mundane level, the very essence of trade unionism. Solidarity between workers is not confined to the happenstance of employer identity, especially in the light of the fragmentation of enterprises in recent years. Secondly, the issue is one of the rule of law. Lord Bingham’s eighth principle requires compliance with international treaty obligations ratified by each state. Those obligations are elaborated by the supervisory bodies established by the relevant treaty to which the state adheres. Their decisions are as much part of international law as is the treaty that authorised them. The right to strike is guaranteed by ILO Convention 87 and Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter of 1961. The decisions of the supervisory bodies of each hold that a prohibition on secondary action by a ratifying state violates these respective provisions. Of course, the United Kingdom has ratified both ILO Convention 87 and, specifically, Article 6.4 of the European Social Charter of 1961. The UK is also represented on both the ILO supervisory committees, the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association. From time to time, it has appointed a representative to the European Committee of Social Rights.

19:00:00

The Labour Party’s Green Paper, A New Deal for Working People, endorsed by the Labour Party conference in 2021 and 2022, committed the party to regulation of industrial action law which complied with international law. The situation is that the supervisory bodies of the ILO since 1989 and of the European Social Charter since 1991 have repeatedly found that the UK’s ban on secondary action is in breach of the respective treaties that I have mentioned. The ILO most recently proclaimed this in 2024, in the report from the Committee on Freedom of Association on the P&O Ferries scandal. The European Social Charter body most recently repeated the same conclusion in its cyclical report on the United Kingdom in 2023. In my respectful view, this situation of international law-breaking by the United Kingdom is simply not tolerable for a country that purports to uphold the rule of law. Therefore, I beg to move.

My Lords, I oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. In doing so, I accept that he is very sincere in the arguments that he makes. I would not necessarily wish to dispute his interpretation of ILO regulations or policies, but we are nevertheless being asked to accept the central premise of secondary picketing. Although I agree with the noble Lord—any reasonable person would—that the P&O dispute was an egregious example of malfeasance and inappropriate behaviour by the management, it should not be the basis of industrial policy and legislation that governs employment. On that basis, and with all due respect, I do not think that the noble Lord’s argument is very compelling. It is always bad law to work on the basis of unique circumstances, situations and anecdotes, notwithstanding the fact that we disagree with how P&O Ferries handled that situation, which was pretty lamentable. That said, in the situation that we now have in the economy, where we have pressure on employment, rising inflation, difficulties in recruitment and ossified GDP growth, and where we are not achieving growth levels that we need, the last thing we need is to make the employment market more disputatious and more litigious. That is what this amendment would do, frankly. If one reads it carefully, the term “connected with” in proposed new subsection 4(a) would probably do a lot of heavy lifting in the future and no doubt be the subject of quite a bit of legal action, one would assume, were it to be incorporated into the Bill. In addition, the change in proposed new subsection 4(b) from employed by “that employer” to by “an employer”—that is, all employers—gives carte blanche, frankly, for going back to the bad old days of the 1970s when we saw behaviour that caused huge disputes and very significant dislocation between the workforce and employers across a wide range of industries. As others touched on in Committee, and notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said about the ILO, this is almost from a different era. We are no longer in the era, or we are less so than we were, of heavily mechanised, heavily unionised manufacturing, where that central argument for having collective action between different groups of workers at different locations—I could mention Saltley coke works and Orgreave, which is very topical—was a pertinent issue. We are no longer in that situation, because of technical change, communication change and the way that people work now. Many more people work from home and many more work on a self-employed basis. They are not accessing unions as members and it is not necessary for them to have that physical collective action. There are, very briefly, other big philosophical and ideological reasons why it would be bad news were this amendment to be appended to the Bill. There would be a disproportionate impact of secondary picketing, which would undermine the confidence of employers, customers and suppliers in businesses that are not directly involved in the dispute. It would create economic damage that extends far beyond the scope of the actual workforce disagreement. It would unfairly target neutral parties. Secondary picketing affects businesses and workers in the supply chain who have no direct involvement in the original dispute. These neutral employers face disruption to their operations, despite having no control over, or responsibility for resolving, the underlying conflict. There would obviously be a multiplier effect in the economy of such disruption. There are also legal and fairness arguments and contractual rights. Secondary picketing can interfere with existing contractual relationships between neutral businesses and their customers, suppliers or employees, which undermines the security of commercial contracts and business relationships. There is also the right to work. Workers at secondary sites who are not party to the original dispute have their own right to work without interference; secondary picketing would, of course, impinge on that right. Secondary picketing can effectively coerce those workers into supporting a cause that they may not agree with or have a stake in. In terms of property rights, secondary picketing often takes place on or near the property of businesses uninvolved in the dispute, potentially interfering with property owners’ rights to conduct their business freely. The rule of law is important as well. There is a reason why there was consensus among the voting public at the 1979 election and onwards, with the continuing legislation brought forward by the Conservative Government, that secondary picketing was essentially retrograde, a bad thing and not good for jobs, prosperity and business. There is a final point to be made about democratic legitimacy. Secondary picketing can give unions power to disrupt parts of the economy where they lack a democratic mandate from the affected workers, as those workers have not chosen to join the industrial action. The point is that if you wish to go on strike, having gone through the democratic processes of a union workplace ballot at your place of work, that must be respected and it must be proper and within the rule of law. However, imposing that particular dispute on other people through secondary picketing undermines democratic legitimacy. I say finally that the Blair Government were not perfect, but they looked at this situation, as did the Brown Government, when Labour was in power from 1997 to 2010 and did not essentially resile from a settled position and a consensus on secondary picketing. For that reason, notwithstanding that I respect the great expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, I think that this is an unfortunate amendment and I oppose it.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 150 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, because I think that it is worth taking just a moment to consider the impact of the reduction in union bargaining power that we have seen on ordinary working people in this country. That will not take long, because it is plain to see, in stagnating living standards and the drag on fair growth, but it is also worth considering how the position of the party opposite on industrial action has evolved over time. In April 1980, the then Secretary of State for Employment, Jim Prior, introduced an Employment Bill which restricted secondary action, but he certainly did not advocate that it should be banned altogether. The then Conservative Government’s position was that secondary action should in fact remain lawful if it related to a first customer and/or supplier that was of direct importance to the original dispute. Jim Prior said that “the only other position that we could take would be to say that there will be no immunity for anything other than primary action. I do not believe … that that is either a practical or a reasonable position to take”. He also said that, by protecting the right to take secondary action in relation to a customer or supplier, “We are seeking to reach a position which we believe is fair and which recognises the traditional rights of the trade union movement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1980; col. 1490.] Back then, a Conservative Minister could acknowledge that the relationship between an employer, on one hand, and workers and their unions, on the other, is an inherently unequal one. But, of course, Jim Prior did not last long in that role and, under successive Conservative Governments, the inequality of power between workers and employers was deliberately and repeatedly reinforced. Secondary action, or solidarity action as it is commonly called, was effectively outlawed in 1990, but here is the problem that I invite noble Lords to reflect on when considering the arguments of my noble friend Lord Hendy. Business was handed a unilateral power to define what secondary action is and, unfortunately, that is an invitation to an abuse of power. This is not an academic point. It was only after a six-week strike in 1984 that Ford sewing machinists finally secured full equal pay, but the victory was short-lived. Ultimately, the company took the decision to outsource those jobs and so avoid any need for pay parity, secure in the knowledge that solidarity action from workers in the customer company would become unlawful. Today, some companies continue to use long supply chains and complex outsourcing arrangements to effectively balkanise workers’ bargaining power. For example, take a company that decides to boost profit margins by targeting one part of the work- force for wage cuts. To prevent fellow workers from participating in industrial action to resist those pay cuts, a company can simply divide itself in two. To paraphrase Jim Prior, is that fair?

My Lords, I will be very brief. Amendment 154 would remove another huge chunk from the legislation and, for the arguments that I rehearsed in the previous group, we will not support any move to force a vote on this occasion.

19:15:00

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, but I think that the argument fell rightly to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because he explained why we could not possibly accept this amendment. Therefore, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 150B, 151 and 152. With this Bill, the Government have chosen to make it easier to strike, lowering thresholds, relaxing long-standing restraints on picketing and removing vital safeguards. It is inevitable then that businesses, especially small ones, will find themselves bearing even greater burdens as a result of what is anticipated will be a new wave of industrial action. Amendment 150B would give employers a narrow and reasonable defence: where a decision taken during or immediately after lawful industrial action was strictly necessary to keep the business afloat, it should not be automatically treated as unlawful detriment. Without this amendment, we risk a situation where businesses face paralysis, exposed to litigation on one side and operational collapse on the other. I believe that Amendment 151 is essential. It makes it clear that intimidation, harassment, damage to property and other coercive actions dressed up as industrial activity will not be protected under the law. Workers have the right to strike, yes, but they do not have the right to bully, vandalise or threaten. To turn to Amendment 152, the Government may now claim that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act has proved ineffective, but we do not agree, not because we are ideologically wedded to it, but because it is simply far too early to make such a sweeping judgment. The Act has barely had time to be tested properly. Therefore, if the Government abandon the principle of minimum service, we look forward to hearing the Minister explain what the Government stand for instead.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, for contributing to this debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for setting out the Lib Dems’ position. I will now speak to Amendment 150, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, and Amendments 150AA, 150B, 151 and 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. On Amendment 150, we are clear that industrial action should take place only where there is a dispute between a group of workers and their direct employer and we will not change this position. Secondary or solidarity action has been prohibited for several decades and the Government will not change this. Permitting secondary action would enable parties with no direct stake in a dispute to take co-ordinated action, increasing the risk of disruption to employers and the public, and would allow industrial disputes to escalate beyond the original context and across different employers. The Government are clear that we are compliant with our international obligations under ILO Convention 87, Article 11 of the ECHR and Article 6 of the European Social Charter, all of which protect the right to strike but also permit restrictions on industrial action necessary in a democratic society. As noted by the European Court of Human Rights in the RMT case in 2014, there is a democratic consensus in the UK in support of the prohibition of secondary action and a broad acceptance of the public interest reasons for it, spanning the gamut of political opinion. Furthermore, the UK is not an outlier. Similar countries such as Australia, Canada, Austria, France and the USA also prohibit or do not protect secondary action. The UK’s model reflects our unique industrial relations framework and economic context, and protects the ability to strike, while also protecting the rights of others. The Government have no intention of changing this. On Amendment 150AA, 150B and 151, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Clause 73 of the Bill is required because the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that Section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is because it fails to provide any protection against detriments—that is, sanctions short of dismissal—intended to deter trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union or penalise them for doing so. I have no doubt that many Members of your Lordships’ House agree that the UK cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations. The Bill will correct this by inserting new Section 236A into the 1992 Act, to provide that: “A worker has the right not to be subjected … to detriment of a prescribed description by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer, if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so”. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following a consultation. These amendments seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out the circumstances in which the detriment protection—whatever the prescribed detriments may ultimately be—will not apply. Indeed, as part of the consultation, we look forward to hearing the perspective of employers on why they may consider detriments could be appropriate in certain circumstances. I must also add that, importantly, the protection from prescribed detriment applies only where the sole or main purpose of subjecting the worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action. For example, if a worker is subject to a detriment solely or mainly because they have damaged property, this protection will not apply. Moreover, the criminal law still applies to pickets and others taking part in industrial action, just as it applies to everyone else. Finally, on Amendment 152, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Clause 75 seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The repeal of the strikes Act is a manifesto commitment that this Government have a mandate to deliver. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to withdraw labour and undermine good industrial relations, and our plan to make work pay pledged to repeal the Act. No work notice has ever been issued by an employer to seek to meet a minimum service level during strike action, and the legislation has never prevented a single day of strike action. Evidence suggests that this is due to employer concerns around worsening industrial relations and the complexity of implementing a minimum service level under the legislation. This demonstrates the futility of that Act and why we intend to repeal it upon Royal Assent. We believe that negotiation and co-operation are better ways to ensure essential services continue during any industrial action, while respecting workers’ rights. Evidence given at the time the strikes Act was being introduced, including from employers, was that existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensured that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action. We are simply returning to this situation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Repealing the rights of the strikes Act will help us to achieve that. I therefore respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Hendy to withdraw Amendment 150.

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate on my amendment. I have a couple of words by way of reply. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the P&O Ferries scandal was not the basis of the argument that I advanced to the House but simply an egregious example of the absence of the right to take secondary action. Noble Lords will recall that that case involved some 800 seafarers who were sacked instantaneously and replaced immediately with agency crews recruited in third-world countries. In doing so, P&O Ferries knowingly and intentionally broke the law. It could do so because it knew exactly how much compensation it was liable for, and it paid it. The unions, on the other hand, were unable to call on fellow workers in the Port of Dover and other cross-channel ports to support them in an industrial dispute to reverse that decision. The seafarers themselves, of course, were on the stones; they were unemployed. A strike by the direct workforce would have been completely pointless. I mentioned it because that is the last example of the ILO commenting on the UK ban on secondary action. It said that the Government and social partners should sit down together and endeavour to negotiate some form of permissible secondary action. The ILO has been consistent on the position since 1989, repeatedly saying that the 1990 law to which my noble friend Lady O’Grady referred was incompatible with Convention 87. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, pointed out various circumstances, which I will not debate with him now, that would make the return of secondary action in this country unacceptable. The point is that special circumstances are not a legitimate justification for a state not to comply with its international obligations. That point was made clear by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in a speech that he made about a month ago, but it is a fundamental principle of international law. Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who commented on the suggestion that the phrase “connected with” ought to be brought back, that phrase is the one that was deployed in the original drafting of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her support and for reminding the House of the fragmentation in employing enterprises, often precisely to achieve and exploit the bar on secondary action, to weaken workers. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, for their comments. To the Minister, my noble friend Lord Leong, I make three quick points. First, I am afraid I do not agree with his comparative law analysis. I have done some work on this over the years, and it is not the case that the countries that he mentioned bar secondary action—at least, not all of them do, although the United States does. Secondly, I accept, as I did in Committee, that we are not in breach of Article 11 of the European convention, but I simply cannot see how it can be argued that we are not in violation of ILO Convention 87 and the European Social Charter’s Article 6.4. The supervisory bodies have said so over and over again. Thirdly, of course I recognise the Government’s position, and my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House. I respectfully ask to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 150 withdrawn.

Amendment 150A not moved.

Clause 73: Protection against detriment for taking industrial action

Amendments 150AA to 151 not moved.

Clause 75: Repeal of provision about minimum service levels

Amendment 152 not moved.

19:30:00

Clause 77: Annual returns: removal of provision about political expenditure

Amendment 152A

Moved by

152A: Leave out Clause 77

My Lords, we have debated this at length. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said, but I cannot see a reason why payments should be hidden from members of a union. In wishing to test opinion of the House, I also declare that I have never received any financial remuneration from the Conservative Party: neither have I received any union payment or indeed a union pension. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

4|19:30|171|189|Division on Amendment 152A|Amendment 152A disagreed.||0|0

19:41:00

Clause 78: Removal of powers to enforce requirements relating to annual returns

Amendment 152B not moved.

Amendment 153 not moved.

19:42:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.27 pm.