Employment Bill [HL]

I was surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been in touch with the TUC, because, according to the information that I have received from it, it is not in favour of the amendment. In particular, it is opposed to proposed new subsection (4C)(b), which states that, "““exclusion or expulsion does not prejudice the individual’s livelihood””." It points out that we no longer have closed-shop agreements in this country—we did once; we do not now. This is not a matter for unions. Unions have no power to alter or prejudice an individual’s livelihood any more, although they might once have had. The TUC is totally opposed to the wording in the amendment on that basis. A number of views have been expressed about the text of the legislation. I have said that I would prefer people to be excluded on the basis of activity rather than membership of a political party, which has its problems. On the other hand, if faced with a choice between the amendment and the proposed legislation, I would have to support the legislation as it stands.