Employment Bill [Lords]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not believe the clause is unworkable. If he allows me to develop the point, I will talk about the safeguards that we have built in and the proposals to which we have listened in the debate on this matter. As has been said, when we consulted on changing the law in this regard, we canvassed two options, both of which introduced changes relating to the particular part of section 174 that deals with political party membership. When we introduced the Bill, we thought that the more deregulatory option A was the better approach to follow. As has been mentioned, in subsequent debate in the other place, when strong representations were made by Lord Morris of Handsworth and others, and the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights a strong case was made for more safeguards against potential abuse. Hon. Members have cited the Joint Committee's report. It said that expulsions should be permitted if"““the decision to exclude or expel was taken in accordance with the union's rules and a fair procedure””" and"““the consequences of exclusion or expulsion would not result in exceptional hardship.””" It made a reference to the union's rules not being ““wholly unreasonable””, but went on to say that that"““may be regarded as an invitation to litigate the reasonableness of a union's rules””." It therefore did not press that point. Hon. Members may say that in all those representations a judgment is made about the clause as it stands. Let me lay to rest some misconceptions about the changes that we have made to the clause. It is certainly not the case that the Government are somehow refusing to legislate in line with the judgment; we believe that it is right to legislate in line with the judgment. Members can be expelled on grounds of political conduct, but we are now talking about membership of political parties. It is not the case—as has been reported, including today—that the changes will mean automatic compensation for those expelled or excluded. If trade unions act in line with the clause, compensation will not be necessary. Lord Morris took part in the debate on the clause, as amended, and concluded:"““Three key principles have been met: Britain will be able to comply with its statutory obligations, trade unions will have freedom and democratic rights in respect of their rule books, while the ability to discipline their members has been preserved, and members' rights to natural justice will be safeguarded. On that basis…I wish the Bill well on its way.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 21.]" I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that the question is not whether we legislate in line with the European convention on human rights, but how we do so. Clause 19 is compatible with the convention, especially given that we are not dealing specifically with the BNP—legislation must be applicable to all members of the public. New clause 6 proposes a third way—if my hon. Friend will forgive me for putting it like that—on top of our two options. It would delete clause 19 and repeal section 174 and related sections of the 1992 Act. The Court did not examine section 174 more widely, but focused heavily on the particular facts of the case, which concerned the expelled member's political party membership and its compatibility with the union's rules and political orientation. I appreciate my hon. Friend's intentions, and I agree that we have a shared objective, but the Government do not think it necessary to extrapolate the Court's reasoning in the way that new clause 6 does in order to legislate in line with the judgment. My hon. Friend asked whether ASLEF could have expelled Mr. Lee under clause 19. I repeat that clause 19 does not mean that names of political parties have to be specified in the rule book. The important question is whether a trade union can use clause 19, and the procedures built into it, to expel or exclude members. It sets out a process whereby unions can act in line with the judgment. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would restrict the operation of the clause too much. How is a union to check exactly how many months a person has been a member of a political party? When the Conservative party was in government, it introduced legislation on the rights of political parties, but did not produce the definition that Conservative Members are calling for tonight. How is a union supposed to police registration systems around the world? We intend to legislate in line with the judgment in a way that trade unions can use, but we do not intend to restrict that so much that the legislation is impossible to operate in practice. For that reason, if the Opposition press their amendments, I shall ask my colleagues to resist them. On clause 19, the Government have listened and responded to points that have been made. It is the best way to operate.