Employment Bill [HL]

I shall make a tiny speech on this amendment explaining why I oppose it, but I shall have to make a longer speech on my own amendment and on the clause stand part. There is nothing worse than becoming the Committee’s legal bore, which I shall try not to do. I shall deal with this extremely briefly and to the point. Everyone would agree that there is an obligation on the United Kingdom to comply with the judgment of the Strasbourg court in the ASLEF case. Article 46 of the convention says that we have an obligation to abide by the judgments of the court. Therefore, the question is simply: how do we do that? To comply with the judgment there has to be amending legislation. The Government are perfectly right to consult on how that is to be done. The Human Rights Act already obliges every tribunal and court in interpreting legislation to act in a way that is in accordance with the right to freedom of association in Article 11 of the convention. It already obliges every court and tribunal to strike a fair balance in the way that this amendment suggests. The problems about this amendment are as follows. First, it does not deal with exclusion but with expulsion only. Whereas the noble Lord referred to both, quite rightly, the amendment does not deal with exclusion. Secondly, it does not satisfy the Strasbourg principle of legal certainty; it does not begin to answer the question but simply leaves it open. Thirdly, it would lead to unnecessary litigation, by the BNP in particular, both in our courts and in Strasbourg. Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law summarises the mischievous way in which the BNP exploits every loophole that it can. Therefore, although I have sympathy with the objective of the amendment, I say with regret that it does not begin to fulfil its aims. That is why I will be suggesting other approaches when we come to the amendment I have tabled and to clause stand part.