Employment Bill [Lords]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with me, but perhaps that is because I did not properly understand what he was saying. Let me go back to the expulsion of Jay Lee. The question now arises whether the way in which he was expelled by ASLEF would be consistent with the law as it will be under the Bill as drafted. Jay Lee was a member of the BNP—there is no ambiguity about that. ASLEF's rule book says that"““no person shall be admitted into membership of ASLEF if by choice they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with, organisations which are diametrically opposed to the objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation””." That focuses more on racism than on naming the BNP, and there are good reasons for not naming the BNP. ASLEF's rules clearly state that membership of ASLEF is incompatible with being a member of a fascist organisation. Jay Lee undoubtedly was such a person, and ASLEF resolved at its conference to expel him. That was consistent with its rule book, and the European Court held that it was a legitimate and legal thing for it to do. It is arguable under the Bill as it stands that because the union rule book does not mention the BNP by name, it would not be possible to have expelled Jay Lee from ASLEF. I think that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead was with me in saying that we should be considering fascists, not just members of the BNP. In that case, he may find himself, surprisingly, on the same side as me in hoping that the Government will move on this. It is likely that the situation involving Jay Lee would still be found under domestic law to be outside the law, even though the European Court has clearly determined that it is within the terms of the European convention on human rights and therefore European law. There is a potential contradiction between the Bill and our existing law, which is of course guided by the European convention. Clause 19(2) states:"““Conduct which consists in an individual's being or having been a member of a political party is not conduct falling within subsection (4A) if membership of that political party is contrary to—""(a) a rule of the trade union, or""(b) an objective of the trade union.””" It also says that such conduct is allowable only if membership of a named political party is in the union's rule book or objectives. The problem is that it is not beyond the realms of credibility for a political party, the BNP or any other, continually to go through the game of changing its name—to BNP 08, BNP 09, the NBP, the PNB, whatever it may be—so as to always be one step ahead of any union rule book. Almost inevitably, the ability to change a union's rule book is not an instantaneous process. This is not Adam Smith's invisible hand—it has to take place at certain moments. I therefore fear that the fascist party can always be one step ahead of the union.