Employment Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to the debate. Of course, I am greatly heartened by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because it seems that that will concentrate minds as much as anything. The fact that it is likely that both opposition parties will be taking a common position if the Government do not budge will, I hope, concentrate ministerial minds on finding a solution to this important question. Secondly, I met the trade union officials and we appreciated our dialogue. None of the points made was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about the certification officer. The certification officer has no power to deal with employees who are excluded from trade unions. That was one reason why that would not work, as we explained to the TUC. The TUC also argued that the common law and the contract of membership provide effective safeguards for individuals. However, that is exactly the position I wish to avoid. Although I revere the late Lord Denning, I must say some of his judgments were deeply reactionary and, on one or two occasions, even sexist. Therefore, although I loved the man and many things about him, I would not like to have to rely upon him, or his children or grandchildren in the courts, for safeguards. I speak as somebody who has acted both for and against trade unions, including a great case against the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that he may remember. The judge in question went to Ascot during the long vacation instead of focusing on what we were dealing with. There are serious limitations in using the common law as the safeguard, as the TUC quaintly now seems to want to do. I want to do away with that. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is concerned, it is important to understand, as Conservative Governments have well understood, that Article 46 of the European convention obliges the United Kingdom to give effect to a binding judgment. It is therefore no use saying, ““We do not like the judgment, so we are not bound by it””. We are bound by it under international law, and would be in real trouble in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe if, for the first time in our history with the convention, we did not comply. That is why the stand part debate is a waste of time. We must have legislation to comply with the judgment. The question is what it should say. The Minister, who is very kind, was a bit unkind in criticising the wording of my amendment, the first part of which came from his own option B. The words are: ““Those conditions would specify””—blah, blah, blah—that it was, "““incompatible with a rule or objective of the union, and the decision to exclude or expel was taken in accordance with union rules or established procedures””." I just took the Government’s words and put them into my amendment. However, parliamentary counsel can no doubt do better than that. All I am asking is for parliamentary counsel to be instructed between now and Report to come up with a wording which satisfies him or her and the Government, and can be put to and discussed by us so that we can all reach agreement. I am an optimist. This is not gold-plating; it is ridiculous to suggest that it is. The Government are taking away safeguards agreed by a Conservative Government and Labour Opposition that were regarded as necessary and are now to be watered down. If the Bill stands as it is, the Government are leaving it to the BNP to litigate on whether the abolition of all safeguards is compatible with the convention. That is why it is dotty to leave it as it is, and why the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, was right to describe it as ““barking””—with respect to the inhabitants of Barking. For all of those reasons, I withdraw with a sense of optimism—but this is not the last word. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.