Employment Bill [HL]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I am somewhat relieved because I thought it would be more abrasive than it was. On this issue it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and I, who have opposed each other over the years in all courts up to the Appellate Committee, are not so far apart on where the interests of the rank and file of the trade union movement lie. The Committee will be glad that there is not much more to hear because this is a matter of fundamental principle that will have to be resolved by the House on Report. One has to accept that the Strasbourg court granted the application on the grounds of the facts and circumstances of the case: that there was no hint of error in the expulsion procedures of the Union. It decided, in terms, that the employment tribunal was in violation of Article 11—why?—because no proper balance had been struck between the freedoms of the trade unions and those of the members. The devil is in the complex detail of the redrafted Clause 17 under option B to amend Section 174 of the 1992 Act, contrary to its original intention. That will still retain a distorted, loaded balance in favour of the trade union movement against the individual rights of the membership. In those circumstances, if this amendment were to commend itself to the Committee, or in due course to the House, clearly Clause 17 would be otiose because the essence of the freedom of the balance that has to be struck is put in simple English in the form of this amendment. I beg to move.