That is precisely why I expressed my understanding and support for the suggestion that the words “reasonably detailed” are unnecessary and may well be counterproductive. I see the force of that criticism, but only that criticism. Let me add that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was concerned that this would require the trade union to put in its demands; it would not. What it requires is that the voting paper must indicate the matter or matters at issue. If we take out “reasonably detailed”, I cannot see the objection to a ballot paper indicating—not setting out in detail, but indicating—the matter or matters in dispute. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Trade Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 February 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Trade Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
768 c2252 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2016-02-15 15:40:38 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210112000007
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210112000007
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210112000007