Employment Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raises an important point, which I shall explain. I used the words ““exceptional hardship””, not ““hardship””. I do not suggest that we spend a lot of time analysing the ASLEF judgment today because it would not be sensible even for the lawyer Members to do that. However, if one reads it, one finds that the case is very much decided having regard to the fact that the particular individual did not suffer exceptional hardship. However, I am concerned that in a future case a BNP member may come along and say, ““I have suffered exceptional hardship but it is not covered by any safeguard in the legislation””. If we leave Clause 17 as it stands, there is nothing to stop a case being brought on those lines. Therefore, it seems to me that we need to spell out the minimum we can in the Bill to try to avoid such litigation and to protect the unions—putting their house firmly in order in line with what Parliament wishes—from it as far as possible. One could, of course, delete ““exceptional hardship”” altogether, but the danger of doing that is the one I have just described. That is the reason for putting it in. I originally put in a lot more language but was persuaded that one should put in as little as possible of a subjective and controversial kind. But I fully understand the question that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, put to me. I hope that I have given my answer, whether he is satisfied with it or not.