UK Parliament / Open data

Employment Bill [Lords]

Proceeding contribution from Tony Lloyd (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bills on Employment Bill [Lords].
My question is, why should there be compensation at all in the case that we are considering? However, as my hon. Friend says, why is it out of line with other forms of compensation? If new clause 6 were adopted instead of the current provisions, it would grant the flexibility that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seeks. It would provide for a much more general process that was consistent with the union rule book. The union rule book could—as the ASLEF rule book did—specify that,"““no person shall be admitted into membership… if… they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with organisations which are diametrically opposed to objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation””." That is clear, albeit general, and covers the problem of rotating party membership. It would grant genuine protection to those who sought it against arbitrary and unfair expulsion or exclusion because of membership of other parties—the Labour party, the Conservative party and so on. The union would be restricted by the rule book and by statute, which would insist on proper reference to the due procedures of a trade union. There are also the principles of natural justice and the role of the certification officer, who has stronger powers in a trade union than the equivalent in a private company. I therefore believe that, for example, the Conservative trade unionist and the Labour trade unionist are protected. The new clause is specifically about unions invoking their rule book to get rid of or not accept those who are avowedly fascist. We should all share that ambition. I therefore recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister revert to the law before it was changed, as set out in new clause 6. If he cannot accept the new clause, he must demonstrate how the genuine doubts that have been raised about the workability of clause 19 can be properly addressed. We cannot find that we have not moved matters on—that would be a victory not only for those who want to amend the measure in the wrong way, but for the BNP and its supporters.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c200 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top