Employment Bill [HL]

My noble friend has, as so often, succeeded in making me realise how very ill informed and un-legally expert I am. My concerns about Clause 17 are very simplistic and straightforward. I ask the indulgence of the Committee so that I can explain why I have very severe concerns about this clause. During my long career, I have been a member of two trade unions, both of which I found of great benefit. They were totally unconcerned with any political views that I might have had at that time, which were pretty misty, but they provided me with very clear benefits. Trade union membership provides legal protection in times of difficulty and security of employment and tenure, for both of which I was immensely grateful. I exercised my trade union membership appropriately and in one case I was quite a leading member of those who called the further education lecturers out on strike when I was a further education lecturer in my very early days. I have a good, robust trade union background. The important thing is that membership of the trade union gave me benefits which are not inconsiderable. My first concern rests on that. Under Clause 17, any individual could be denied membership of a trade union and all the protection that it gives, simply on the basis of what political party she or he belongs to. That is not trivial, and it is totally wrong. I simply cannot see how a person’s politics can affect such membership, provided they are a member of a legally recognised political party, even if it holds views which most of us would find distasteful. I understand that there have been concerns about the BNP. I find its views totally obnoxious and distasteful. Nevertheless, it is a recognised political party and in a democracy we accept views that we disagree with strongly, as well as those with which we happen to feel comfortable. Again, that seems to me to be a basic principle of democracy. My simple and non-legal view is that the right to belong to a trade union should not be affected by membership of any legally recognised political party. It would be a denial of two democratic rights—that of belonging to a trade union and that of belonging to a political party, both of which we cherish in this country. People have fought and shed blood over the right for both of those to be maintained. This clause seems to attack the very foundations on which they rest. My second concern is practical. In my Civil Service days, I was always taught never to spoil a good argument with a bad one. I have given the Committee my good argument, but I shall now give the weaker one. I have thought about this concern in the dark watches of the night. If this clause goes through and some trade unions nail their colours to the mast with a specific set of political views, they could say to members of, for example, the Conservative Party, ““I am sorry, but your political membership does not coincide with our views. Therefore, we are expelling you””, or vice versa. It could lead to a splintering of trade unions. Let us suppose that in some of our great trade unions—for example, the TGWU or whatever—many of which I have dealt with over the unions as an employer and have great respect for, political in-fighting begins to happen and alternatives are set up. To have groups saying, ““We are the Conservative trade unionists in the Civil Service”” or ““We are the Liberal Democrat trade unionists in the teaching unions””, or whatever would be appalling. The greatness of our trade unions is that they embrace all political parties, and I shall rest on that argument.