 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Employment Bill [Lords] |
Employment Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Hannah Weston,
Committee Clerk † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 16 October 2008[Mr. Martin Caton in the Chair]Employment Bill [Lords]Clause 18Exclusion
or expulsion from trade union for membership of political
party 1
pm Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I beg to move
amendment No. 17, in page 17, line 41, at
end add— ‘(4) In section 177
(interpretation and other supplementary provisions) after subsection
(2) there is
inserted— “(2A)
For the purposes of section 174 an individual will only be considered
to be a member of a political party if within the 12 months
prior to the date of an individual’s application for membership
of the trade union that individual was registered with the political
party as a
member.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 41, at
end add— ‘(4) In section 177
(interpretation and other supplementary provisions) after subsection
(2) there is
inserted— “(2A)
For the purposes of section 174 a group will be considered to be a
political party only where it has been registered with the Electoral
Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
2000 (c. 41) or any foreign equivalent, and at the time of the
individual’s application for membership of the trade union the
party remains on such a
register.’.
Mr.
Djanogly: We are still on clause 18 and we are looking at
ways in which more security can be put into the clause to protect the
rights of employees. Amendment No. 17 aims to limit how far back into a
member’s past a trade union is entitled to look to find reasons
to exclude or expel. I accept that this is a question of balancing
interests proportionately and in a common-sense fashion. However, the
views and opinions that we hold in our youth are often bred of some
degree of naivety and optimism for the world and those who inhabit it.
Likewise, youthful ideals may have made some of us intolerant of
others, but with time, some people change. Their views change and
actions are
adapted. For
instance, we must all accept that membership of the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament as a student in the 1960s should not automatically
enable a 50-year-old to be expelled from a trade union that represents
workers in the nuclear industry. Without great caution, it seems that
this could be extended further. What happens if an over-zealous parent
had a teenage child signed up to an extreme party membership? Should
the beliefs of the parent be used to punish the son? Of course
not.
This
provision seems at odds with a person’s human rights. The
amendment seeks to address the wrong by saying that the party
membership must have been within the last 12 months. My hon. Friend the
Member for
Northampton, South made a powerful case, albeit slightly earlier than he
was meant to, as to how unacceptable it would be for his party
membership some years ago to be taken into account now. He may wish to
come back and finish his remarks.
Amendment No.
18 goes to the definition of a political party. I have previously
stated how we view this clause as an attack on civil liberties in many
ways, but that we recognise the need to address the issue by virtue of
the European convention on human rights. As things stand there is no
definition of a political party in the Bill, so we need to ask at what
point a person’s political views constitute membership of a
political party. If someone votes for the Socialist Workers party, or
strongly or openly espouses some of its views, but is not a member of
that party, could that person be banned from union membership? This is
why we see the key issue as being conduct, not party membership. This
whole area could be a recipe for disaster.
Furthermore,
to all hon. Members who are worried about the British National party
today—I agree that we all need to be worried—I say that
they are missing the wood for the trees. We should keep in mind that
the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson)
supported the original legislation here in order to protect communists
and their fellow travellers from being hounded out of unions. The hon.
Member for Broxtowe made the same point in relation to a German
union. We
can talk about countering the BNP but we should not think that this
legislation is necessarily the format to use. Many other organisations
could be caught in the net. Given the position we find ourselves in, we
need to regulate carefully who will be caught in the definition of
political party. That is why we suggest that we limit the expulsion
right to members of political parties that are registered. When a
similar amendment was moved in another place, the Minister noted that
the employee may belong to a foreign party. The amendment now caters
for that
eventuality. Perhaps
the amendment’s drafting is not perfect, but I find it difficult
to believe that the Government will be unable to draft an appropriate
definition of a political party. When we come within the wide
parameters of democracy, the spectrum of beliefs is very broad and the
question is where we draw the line and who draws it. While exclusion
for membership of the BNP may seem reasonable, at what point do we
stop? Baroness Miller
said: “Could,
for example, a union involved with workers in the nuclear or
coal-mining industry exclude a member of the Green
Party?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7
January 2008; Vol. 697, c.
671.] I fear
that we may end up with trade union witch hunts in which hon. Members
who show even the slightest diversion from a party line find themselves
out on their ear. The Orwellian undertones are frighteningly apparent
in their
potential. Secondly,
once splits appear along political lines, how soon will it be before we
see the internal fragmentation of trade union membership? What will
stop those with differing political leanings from creating their own
splinter groups? Increasingly, politics is an issue-driven playing
field. The traditional affiliations of parties have been blurred and
the electorate has become a more homogenised group as the parties head
to the middle ground. That
will present further problems should trade unions be able to bar
membership on the basis of membership of the Countryside Alliance,
Greenpeace or Amnesty International. How are we to categorise such
groups? Are they political parties for the purposes of this Bill? As
the fractures materialise, there could be further claims. We will then
end up back here debating the same points after another slap
on the wrist from Strasbourg. For those reasons, I am happy
to move the
amendment. Dr.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): I want to raise a few points
on the amendments. First, we have a briefing from Thompsons Solicitors,
which acted for ASLEF in the court case that has given rise to this
particular piece of legislation. It is critical of clause 18 as a
whole, but its argument is slightly different from the ones mentioned
so far. I will relate it to the amendment under discussion. Its concern
is that even if a union could exclude members of the BNP, the party
could change its name or have a slightly different variant every year
to evade the exclusion. I am not sure how realistic that is because in
practice, any serious political party would find it very difficult to
change its name every year.
The same
difficulty arises with amendment No. 18 in which the hon. Gentleman
seeks to limit the exclusion to parties that are officially registered.
However, the overtly neo-Nazi group Combat 18, which seeks to prepare
for racial war, is not a registered political party. It stretches
tolerance to the point of insanity if we say that we should force trade
unions to associate with members of a group that is preparing for
racial war. The issue is not really whether it is a political party as
defined in the amendment, but whether we should enable trade unions to
draw the line somewhere in a reasonable
manner. With
regard to the hon. Gentleman’s point about limiting the period
of membership to 12 months, I have to declare an interest. I was a
communist when I was young, although I was not a party member. I was
quite open about it. I can imagine a situation in which that could be
used against me professionally—outside my current profession
perhaps.
The provision
about fairness is relevant. Proposed new subsection (4G)(b) requires
that any decision be taken fairly. In my case, the involvement was 40
years ago. Reference was made to the possibility of the parents being
involved. Any court would rule in practice that such an association had
long lapsed and that it was not fair within the meaning of the common
law to use it against the individual.
In
today’s society, trade unions are voluntary associations of
people who come together for a common cause. It is open to anyone to
form a separate trade union. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there
was a danger that someone might do so under the Bill. Well, the BNP has
already set up the trade union, Solidarity, for people who do not wish
to be part of the TUC. It has a right to do that. As long as the party
is legal, I do not have a problem with it setting up its own trade
union. It is a reasonable solution to the
problem. As
long as being a member of a particular trade union does not carry with
it significant career and financial implications—it does not
under the Bill—it
should be a matter of freedom of association to allow people to join
unions whose objectives are similar to their own. It is reasonable to
allow unions to exclude people whose objectives conflict directly with
their own, in the same way that I might have difficulty were I to apply
to join the Conservative party.
John
Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): The principle in
amendment No. 17, which is that only trade union membership in the
immediate year before or during the membership period should matter, is
reasonable. It is the drafting that is problematic. I understood the
amendment to apply only to membership of a political party during the
12-month period prior to applying to be a member of a union, so if
someone was a member of the union and then joined the party that would
disqualify them, that would not count. I cannot back the drafting of
the amendment, but its principle is
good. Amendment
No. 18 is also good because that again refers to a form of conduct, but
membership of a political party or standing for a party is a definable
act. The Committee knows that I am sympathetic with the underlying
principle of freedom of association. I have no problem with that. As
the hon. Member for Broxtowe explained, people can take other routes if
they do not like that one. The principle of amendment No. 17 is good,
even if the wording needs to be sorted out. Amendment No. 18 is very
good. Natascha
Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): I am sure that some
of my lawyerly friends will speak more about the matter, but an
arbitrary 12-month period in which lawyers will have to prove that
someone has been a member of a political party for 12 months prior to
applying to be a member of a trade union seems completely
unenforceable. It would take for ever to prove how long someone has
been a member. Was it from when they filled in the application form?
Was it from when the application form arrived? It seems completely mad
to have something so specific, when we are talking about much broader
principles in respect of freedom of association, and membership of
political organisations and trade unions. I should like an explanation
of the
provision. Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): I support the
clause wholeheartedly. I wish that it went further. It does not, so I
shall speak to the amendment itself. I do not like the fact of making
decisions that are based on a person’s association, particularly
with a political party. Parties are broad churches and for a trade
union to be able to assume that it can take such action, be it to take
into account membership of a political party for 12 months or
otherwise, seems to be a dangerous
premise. Michael
Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): Has the hon.
Gentleman noted the wideness of the BNP’s policies? I have not
noted them to be in any way integrationary or prepared to consider
having members of different creeds unless they maintain the white
supremacy rule. That is not the sort of party that most trade unions
want to have in their
path.
1.15
pm
Mr.
Binley: I will be delighted to answer that. My record of
standing up against the BNP is second to none. I do not like any
implication that it might not be, and I will not accept
it.
Mr.
Binley: Hang on. I will finish the answer to the question,
which I found frankly offensive. Many good people in this
country—this point has been raised—were members of the
Communist party at a time when Stalin was killing 16 million people.
Are we to say that, because of that association, they should not be
members of the Law Society, of a trade union or indeed of any
organisation with an impact on employment? I would argue that that is
not the case, but my point is that we should be dealing with the
individual and the individual’s characteristics, not with what
might be said about the people with whom they associate. Freedom of
association is an important factor in that respect too, and it seems to
me that the balance struck has not taken that perspective into account.
I argue for all our freedoms in that respect, and I would have hoped
that the hon. Gentleman would see that to be the
case. I
am also concerned that the amendment, which I will support as the
lesser of evils, recognises that when dealing with such membership, a
person’s association can be noted rather than their own standing
and beliefs, recognising that political parties are broad churches.
That could swing round and hit all of us where it hurts if we are not
careful. The thin end of the wedge, in that respect, is dangerous.
Before I am questioned again, I repeat that I have stood alongside my
colleague the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) when we
were threatened with a BNP march, waiting for them to come to the
station. The whole ethos of the British National party horrifies me, as
does much of the ethos of the Communist party.
My point is
about judging an individual on his own worth, not on the basis of
association, which we all choose for good or bad. There are a number of
things that I do not like about the Conservative party, but I make a
decision. I am sure that there are lots of things that the hon.
Gentleman does not like about the Labour party, but one makes a
decision. Let us judge a person on his individual character and views,
not on the groups with which, for one reason or another, he might
associate
himself.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 17 October 2008 |