Employment Bill [HL]

I will try not to take too much time. At the outset I have had to give notice that a little local difficulty has arisen as to the intendment of Clause 17. It also relates to Amendment No. 26A. It is not merely technical but fundamental, so I have no option but to take it and bore you all with why, in the shortest possible time, it must be taken out. It will of course be a matter for decision on Report, but this difficulty warrants clarification on any showing before Report. That is the object of this exercise. This difficulty may well have arisen because, as I have discovered, as yet there is no settled policy on this in my party; I cannot speak for other parties, but I suspect that I may. I think that I have discovered that there is as yet no settled policy in the Labour Party, but I do not know and can only speak subject to correction. This was acknowledged at Hansard col. GC 304 on 13 March by my noble friend Lord Henley, who said that there was as yet no decision as to the correct approach. That speaks for itself. A difficulty also arises in that many noble Lords may have been speaking for themselves at no one’s behest—of which I am, I suppose, a prime example. Of course, I seldom speak at anyone’s behest. This may have led to difficulties with the parties, which must be settled at a different level from where we are today, but it must be met. In view of the way I put things, and dealing with how people speak for themselves and not merely for their party, I oppose Clause 17. I opposed it at Second Reading for reasons given under option A of the Library Notes, because it was open to abuse. I still oppose it for that reason. In Grand Committee, Amendment No. 27 was moved to amend Clause 17. I opposed it because of distortion of the balance, to put it simply, in favour of the trade union movement and for the reasons given under option B of the Library Notes. It found little favour with the Minister, the TUC, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, or—if I remember correctly—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. However, it attracted the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who said that it would be ““very strongly”” supported. Now one gets to the intendment of Clause 17. The Minister rightly said that the concept was to seek compatibility of our domestic law with the decision of the Strasbourg court in ASLEF, and that: "““The European judgment is clear: there are no ifs or buts. We are therefore obliged to make the consequential changes to our ""law, and that is what Clause 17””,—[Official Report, 13/3/08; col. GC 304.]" is all about. I totally agree. That was said after my noble friend Lord Henley had asserted that the basis on which you left out Clause 17 was that there was no obligation to follow the decision of the ECHR, because, as he said: "““In my submission, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is not binding. We do not have to legislate on this””.—[Official Report, 13/3/08; col. GC 313.]" I thought that my party was supporting my opposition to the clause standing part, but for a reason that I could not conceivably accept. It was only when I tried to get down into the issue that I discovered that many Members of the Committee were probably speaking for themselves and not for their party. That matter needs attention before Report. Observations were made by my noble friend on Amendments Nos. 26A and 27 which related to Clause 17 stand part. Amendment No. 26A, which reflects the essence of the reasoning in ASLEF, will be redrafted to reflect conformity with the Long Title. At the moment, it is outside it and is defective. No one told me that, but I have had another look at it and come to that conclusion. That will be amended to bring it strictly within the Long Title. Amendment No. 27 is apparently to be redrafted to correct error, having eventually succumbed to the Wedderburn creeping barrage, which hit its mark in due course. It will be for the House to decide whether Amendment No. 26A commends itself and, if so, whether Clause 17 is otiose, and whether Clause 17 stand part, howsoever amended—it looks as though it will be amended again by a revised Amendment No. 27—it being a common purpose of Clause 17 and Amendments Nos. 26A and 27 to amend our domestic law to seek compatibility, Section 174 of the 1992 Act having been found not to be compatible. That is the fundamental matter on which I hope agreement can be reached before we venture forth on Report. It is a fundamental principle and, if this were not acceptable, it has to be said by whom, and argued on the Floor of the House. It is not a matter that can be argued conveniently, subject to what the noble Lord says, today. The final aspect is that Amendment No. 26A was tabled, together with this opposition to the Question that Clause 17 stand part, before Amendment No. 27. It was not known until the third day of Grand Committee whether my proposal—that Clause 17 do not stand part—would be supported, because there was no need to legislate. This is the antithesis of the situation, which is embarrassing to a degree. It was not known that, if we could not strike out Clause 17, we would very strongly support Amendment No. 27, which I have dealt with before. Again, I find myself in a difficulty. It was not known until the third day of Committee that, because there was no need to legislate, Amendment No. 26A would be opposed without any consideration of the merits. It was not opposed by anyone, unfortunately, except by my noble friend. My opposition to the Question will be retabled on Report with the amendment about expulsion and exclusion only on grounds of membership of a political party and to seek compatibility with ASLEF. I apologise for speaking at length.