Employment Bill [HL]

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my two colleagues on this side. I fully support the TUC in this. My noble friend Lord Morris says that solicitors may have a vested interest, but surely the vested interest will be in more litigation, not less. This provision is likely to lead to more litigation and I put on the record the fact that Thompsons is totally opposed to that. In the end, it is not just the narrow membership issue that is at stake, but the freedom of trade unions to operate, to associate and, if necessary, to exclude justifiably from membership. What has been said is quite right. If we leave the issue where it is, a trade union will have to name in its rule book the organisation concerned, which, as has been said, could lead to a far right organisation changing its name and continuing to change its name so that a particular member would never be expelled from the union. That is the truth of it. I am afraid that I do not like many things about the amendment. It is far too narrow and I do not believe that it will fulfil the objectives that have been put forward. I think that more litigation will result from it. We hoped that the unions would not have to go to Strasbourg again on this matter but I think that this makes the situation worse. I say to my noble friend that complaints can be made to the certification officer, so why do they have to go back to the court? Is this a matter of bypassing? The certification officer is there to deal with such matters. I am sorry that it has come to this, but we need an explanation from my noble friend Lord Bach. It would have been more straightforward to take the first proposal rather than this amendment. I am sure that the TUC will not rest and that it will be very upset if this is carried through. The only objective open to it is to continue its lobbying in another place. I hope that my noble friend will pay attention to what we are saying.