Employment Bill [HL]

I welcome the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the debate. He is not only an authority on human rights law, but he is also an authority whom I have followed for many years. He is motivated by a desire to ensure that our law complies with the European Convention on Human Rights and by a desire to ensure that the rights of individuals are properly protected. I can assure him that Her Majesty’s Government share those desires completely. The noble Lord believes that extra statutory safeguards are needed. Later I shall turn to the way in which he has constructed those safeguards. I shall also say something about the overall argument for new safeguards. I hope he agrees with me that the important safeguards that currently exist are unaffected by Clause 17. The noble Lord mentioned the 1970s when the only safeguard was running down to the Strand when you knew that Lord Denning was sitting in the Court of Appeal. I—being a tad younger—sat at the feet of all three noble Lords present who specialise in law. At that time, I was at University College, London. We would be sitting at the top of Southampton Row and, if we heard that Tom Denning was about to sit in the Strand, we would all leave the lecture room, no matter what was on, run down Southampton Row, pile into the public gallery and listen to what some saw as the only safeguard of an individual’s rights at that time. The noble Lord brought back memories of a very informative time of my life. Existing or former union members today are still able to go to the courts or the certification officer to challenge whether the union's decision in any case is in accordance with its rules, be they procedural or substantive. Arbitrary acts can therefore be effectively challenged. Previous cases have mainly involved a union's decision to expel a person, so the safeguards deal with the main types of case which could possibly arise. I guess the current safeguards apply to virtually all cases, but, of course, not all. I am grateful and happy that we are not in those dark days of 1970 again. The case for extra statutory safeguards rests on the belief that abuse will occur. But where is the evidence that such abuse is an actual practical issue? In those few cases where trade unions have acted against individuals on the grounds of their party membership, it has generally involved political extremists, either of the left or, more recently, of the far right. Does the noble Lord have any examples where arbitrary acts have been taken by trade unions to expel or exclude individuals for belonging to any mainstream political party? I think not. In addition, it is essential to study closely the court's decision in deciding whether further safeguards, which must inevitably limit union autonomy, are needed. The court unequivocally stated that the collective rights of the trade union must take precedence in the UK’s conditions. In our circumstances, the loss of union membership does not affect the right to work because the closed shop is unlawful. In our system of employment relations, where bargaining units cover both union and non-union members alike, a person's terms and conditions of employment are not affected by the loss of union membership. The noble Lord argues that the safeguards are needed in order to comply with the convention, but, on a close reading of the judgment, we believe there is a stronger case to suggest that his amendment would actually have the opposite effect. His approach would expose the UK to the real risk of further adverse judgments by the court. There are therefore good reasons why extra safeguards should not be introduced. Why complicate the law if there is no problem to address? Why create new statutory safeguards when safeguards already exist? I believe that there is a real danger that the approach favoured by the noble Lord might result in excessive regulation and a breach of the European convention, which would indeed be again exploited by the extremists. Indeed, it could be justly criticised as gold-plating.