Employment Bill [Lords]

I think that my hon. Friend's point is very arguable, and is of huge concern in the context of the real impact of these provisions. The new clause goes on to offer striking workers immunity from dismissal proceedings by the company. That too goes one step further than the current provisions of section 238A, thus pushing the new clause further into the category of what we see as unacceptable. I am afraid that, from a pro-business standpoint, it loses none of its initial unreasonableness as it proceeds. Taken as a whole, the new clauses would tie the hands of business in an unacceptable manner, at a time when we should be unburdening businesses to allow them to survive these turbulent times. What I have said about new clause 1 could just as easily be applied to new clause 2. Again, trade union representatives are seeking preferential treatment for those on strike, or, in this particular case, those about to strike. On a fundamental level, I find the new clause difficult to swallow. It would place a duty on an employer to assist in an action that would harm their own business, which is akin to asking a condemned man to tie his own noose. Section 226 of the 1992 Act requires unions to hold a ballot before industrial action is taken for it to fall within the category of ““protected action””, and the Act goes on to secure a union's right to strike. That right should not be further extended to impose a duty on companies to assist union members in bringing their action within the protection of the legislation. If union officials cannot do that themselves, and also need the company to supply the details of their own members, I cannot see why they deserve the protection that the new clause would provide. New clause 3 would prevent companies from employing workers to fill the places left by those taking industrial action, which I think the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) called a scam.