Lord Collins of Highbury:

Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

120C: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

120D: Schedule 3, page 191, line 13, at end insert—“(6) Before making—(a) the first regulations to be made under subsection (4), and(b) the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5)(b),the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

120E: Schedule 3, page 191, line 27, at end insert—“(5C) Before making the first regulations to be made in reliance on subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B and I will also speak to Motions E, E1, F and F1. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to unfair dismissal, trade union industrial action, ballots and political funds. These are areas clearly linked to our manifesto commitments, which the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver. I thank all Members of the House for their engagement on these areas throughout the passage of the Bill. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised and in response, wherever possible, we are offering amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise to the amendments made to the Bill. It may not be the rabbit that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expected, but I would like to make it clear to the House that none of the amendments tabled by the Government will compromise the fundamental principles of the Bill, nor their intended impact, which is, I repeat, a commitment made in our manifesto.

On Motion B, relating to Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E tabled by the Government in the other place, we remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections, ensuring that around 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired—that is the principle we are addressing. The Government have listened to stakeholders and tabled an Amendment in lieu in the other place which ensures that the Government consult on key aspects of the framework. This will ensure that there is direct input from both employers and employees, enabling businesses to shape the legislation and ensure that it is practical and proportional.

To reiterate what was said in the other place, day-one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the ability of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or pass a probation period, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. That is what this Bill is about. A six-month qualifying period threshold still leaves employees exposed to arbitrarily being fired during the early months of their new job.

As we have said from the start, the implementation of day-one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. There is a power in the Bill to modify the test when employers can fairly dismiss employees during the statutory probationary period for specific reasons related to performance and suitability. The Government will consult on our approach to ensure it has maximum flexibility so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in terms of the cost of its implementation and operation.

Motion F and Amendment 62C, tabled by the Government in the other place, relate to the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, unnecessary red tape on union activity works against the core negotiation and dispute resolution that we all seek. Bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strike action; they only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining that settles disputes—and that is our commitment in this Bill in terms of ensuring the promotion of growth. The repeal of the 50% turnout threshold also aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, and we should not forget that.

However, we recognise concerns on turnout, and I am grateful for the conversations I have had with noble Lords opposite, including, of course, my noble brother. It is absolutely right that we address those concerns. That is why we tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place which will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of non-postal balloting, such as electronic balloting, and the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. That will be the test of removing that 50% threshold, and I hope the noble Lord opposite will understand our commitment to ensure there is effective turnout.

Motion E and Amendment 72C tabled by the Government in the other place relate to political funds, and Motion E1 relates to the amendment in lieu of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I start by thanking the noble Lord for his engagement with me on this area, particularly in ensuring that we both understand our respective positions. However, I think I made it clear to him that we cannot accept his latest amendment in lieu, which effectively retains something similar to the arrangements in the 2016 Act, as members will be deemed to be a contributor to the political fund only if they opt into making these contributions, forcing members to make a choice to either opt in or opt out on the application forms, otherwise preventing them from joining a union if they do not do so. That is an additional burden on unions. In the Bill, we are simply returning to the situation as it was prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. The noble Lord’s amendment would also block the Government’s delivering on the commitment to repeal that Act. We are reinstating the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years before the passage of the 2016 Act, including that operated during the Thatcher and Major Administrations.

I reiterate, as we have in previous debates, that we are not removing choice. New members who opted in are doing so on the basis that they are actively joining a voluntary organisation that has structures to determine policy and action, and a political fund that has already been established via a democratic ballot of its members. Once part of the union, these members have control over how the political fund is used through the same democratic structures, including on questions of union affiliation or financial support to political parties. That is absolutely clear. We have been very clear, too, to be careful to draft the Bill to ensure that, at the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out of contributing to that political fund.

They can do this when joining or at any time afterwards. The same form will make it plain that opting out has no negative bearing whatever on any aspect of their union membership. These requirements for application forms must be set out in the rules of the unions that operate a political fund, and union rules are subject to approval from the certification officer. Exercising the right to opt out will not be onerous. The Bill specifies that union members will be able to provide an opt-out notice in various forms, including by post, email and completion of an electronic form—all the modern, speedy ways of communication that we now expect. These options for opting out must also be included in the rules of the union.

The Government also tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place, which takes into account how opt-out notices would take effect to ensure that unions can process these opt-out notices as quickly as possible. Under Amendment 72C, an opt-out notice will now have effect either on 1 January of the year after it has been provided or on a day specified or determined in the rules of the union, whichever of these dates comes first. This provides unions with flexibility under the legislation to act more quickly and process a member’s request to opt out, without having to wait until the subsequent 1 January to do so. We are committing to engage with unions directly to continue to make clear our expectation that opt-out notices will be honoured as swiftly as practically possible. I beg to move Motion B in the name of my noble friend Lady Lloyd.