Employment Bill [Lords]

I shall be brief, because there is much important business that we need to reach tonight. I am disappointed by the complete absence of movement on any of these issues—even after the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I was expecting a form of words that would enable us to move forward. On the first issue of unfair dismissal and detriment during an industrial dispute, some of us might live in different worlds, but in my constituency and across the country people have been sacked unfairly on a number of occasions. They do not feel that they have the appropriate protections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made a point about international law and ILO conventions, and yes, we are in breach of them. We have consistently been in breach of them. Various international reports, which I listed earlier, have emphasised that point. We no longer have the standards of industrial and trade union rights in this country that apply across the rest of Europe. I was simply seeking to ensure that there would at least be a power for reinstatement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the issue of reinstatement and said that in some instances that would be detrimental to the individual. Under new clause 1, that would have happened only if the complainant wished to be reinstated. It offered flexibility, so that there would be the right to secure one's job again. I am also disappointed that there has been no movement on balloting. I acknowledged that the Government have taken steps on two occasions, in 1999 and 2004. We have cited example after example to show that in practice those steps have not enabled the democratic wishes of trade unionists undertaking a ballot to enable action to take place on the majority vote. The flexibility that we thought that we secured when I supported the Government in 1999 and 2004 is not being applied by the courts. We have given example after example of that. An example was given that involved the buses. It is not just about employers having a duty to provide information in ballots. New clause 2 would place a duty on the employer ““reasonably to co-operate generally”” with a trade union while it engages in balloting action to test the wishes of its members. I do not believe that we have had an acceptable answer that demonstrates that the Government would even consider a timetable for addressing the practical problems that trade unions experience in this country. We gave example after example of what agency workers have done to undermine industrial relations in this country. Let me give an example from my constituency. Before a dispute even took place, the employer, Gate Gourmet, went out and recruited agency workers and then herded my constituents into a shed and gave them three minutes to decide whether they would accept reduced wages and conditions. If they decided not to do so, they were replaced by agency workers. We are seeking to prevent such undermining. It does not just affect those individuals who are in dispute, but sours the industrial relations climate of this country. We are appealing for some movement from the Government. The Minister said that he had received representations, but I was hoping that the Government would consider them seriously and that, after consultation, they would come forward with proposals to tackle the concrete problems of industrial relations and trade union rights in this country. I bitterly regret that they have not done so. On that basis, and to save time this evening, I shall be happy to withdraw new clause 1. However, I wish to press new clause 2 on balloting procedures to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.