Employment Bill [HL]

I do not think that the noble Lord understands what I am trying to say. It is my fault, I am sure. What I am saying is that unions are autonomous organisations. They have very important autonomy and independence. It is very important that that is respected. What they do with their rule book is a matter for them and their members. It is not the business of government to intervene and tell them what to put in their rule books. If they want the privilege of excluding people on the basis of mere membership of a political party, that obviously is a serious matter. Although I use the easy target of the BNP, it could just as well be the Liberal Democrats, an animal rights party or the Green Party. The Government talk about mainstream parties. I hope they regard my party as mainstream, but I am not sure whether they regard the Green Party or some new party as mainstream, so one has to be a bit careful about dealing only with what is called mainstream. Let me take the easy position of the BNP because no one here would have much sympathy for it. Suppose the trade union movement considers that the BNP is so obnoxious in its practices, such as those that were indulged in in relation to Lee, for example, that it wished to have protection and to exclude or expel solely on the ground of membership of that party. My amendment would require it—Members of the Committee may not think this is sufficient but I think it is just about sufficient—first, to have a rule book in order, with which it will comply in deciding to exclude or expel. If it does not want to do that it does not have to, but if it does not, it will not have the protection of the law. Secondly, the exclusion or expulsion should not prejudice the individual’s livelihood or conditions of employment. The Minister has pointed out that we no longer have the closed shop. That is absolutely true, and thank goodness it is. However, the Minister as a former employer—organisation representative—will know that it is possible for unions to put pressure on employers to act in a particular way that will adversely affect the livelihood of the individual. The other safeguard that I have written in is that that abuse should not be capable of happening. Provided a union keeps its own house in order with its own rule book, applies the rule book properly, and does not go to an employer through the back door, saying, ““This chap is a fascist so sack him””, it would be acting lawfully under my amendment. If we do not have my amendment—