Employment Bill [HL]

My Lords, I suspect that most Members of this House will agree with many of the principles and details mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morris of Handsworth, not only in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but in the main part of his speech. There is a great deal of agreement that the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is absent, should be congratulated on the amendment. However, to some extent I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that undertakings made to him only a few days before the Recess by my noble friend Lord Jones of Birmingham, who is also absent, have not been carried forth. An amendment suddenly appeared during the parliamentary Recess. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and no doubt others, we first came across it only today. If this is to be the definitive amendment on this key provision in the Bill, it needs to be right. I am not sure that it is right; in other words, therefore, I agree with a great deal of what was said by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. I am among those who have received briefing from the well known firm of trade union and employment lawyers, Thompsons, which has huge and lengthy experience. One point that it makes—and I think that my noble friend Lord Bach owes it to my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden to answer this—is that proposed new subsection (4C) seems to require a union to have either a rule or an objective that outlaws membership of ““that political party””. I want to develop the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner. As we are all interested in politics, we know that the extreme right—and in my younger days the extreme left as well—is always breaking up into splinter groups. Perhaps the ““far left”” now has no particular meaning, but certainly trade unions do not wish to have to put up with membership that includes those of extreme right views. It would no doubt be the simplest thing in the world for the BNP to call itself ““BNP 2008”” and then, on 1 January, to change the name to ““BNP 2009””; it would then be a different political party. It has changed its name in the past from the National Front to the BNP to something else—I cannot remember the various names that it has had. Thompsons pointed out to some of us in its briefing: "““A requirement that the relevant political party be named in the Rules or objects … would be an invitation to the far right parties liable to otherwise fall foul of trade union Rules and objects to regularly change their names””." That is the trouble. However, the crunch question is: ““Does it matter?””. It matters from the point of view of the question with which we are all concerned: will the new Bill and the trade union rules made thereafter be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights? Here, perhaps I may again quote from the Thompsons briefing, which states that, "““the additional gloss contained in the redrafted (4C) requiring that a union has either a rule or an objective which outlaws membership of ‘that political party’ fails to understand the ECHR’s decision or properly amend the law in the light of the ECHR decision and will be open to further challenge either in the domestic courts or the ECHR in an appropriate case””." The Minister must give an answer to that because this amendment is in his name and that of the well known human rights lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I am sorry that the Minister is on his own and that he does not have the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, this afternoon, but does he really think that the amendment and the Bill that will be sent off to the other place will be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights?