Employment Bill [Lords]

Following that speech, I hope to throw a little more light than heat on our proceedings. Unlike some Members, I have listened carefully to both sides of the argument, and have taken advice from both the TUC and the CBI. On new clause 1, I cannot quite agree with the CBI, which has said:"““Implying that industrial action is inherently lawful would represent the most fundamental change to industrial relations law in generations—and could empower trade unions to bring our economy to its knees””." I do not recognise that description, nor do I recognise the description that we heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). New clause 1 would replace the section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which deals with the dismissal procedures applying to those who participate in official industrial action with a new section that strengthened the protection of employees participating in lawful industrial action. The question is whether the onus should be on the employer to prove that a dismissal was not related to a strike, or on the employee to prove that it was. If the dispute was about wages the new clause would work, but if it was related to disciplinary charges or charges of victimisation, it might well encourage workers to go on strike in the knowledge that they could not be sacked. Although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I hope that the Government will investigate the new clause further, and return with a proposal on which all Members can agree.