---

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. The Bill is highly technical and seeks to change things that seem technical, but it has the support of no major party in the House. The Bill is also highly controversial in that it seeks to extend the right to strike, but in reality would extend only uncertainty and the getting of money by our legal friends—I used to be one, I regret to confess. We should not proceed in that way. As a member of the new intake, I was driven to be here today at the request of several constituents, who wrote to me. One letter stated:"““John McDonnell's Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 22 October and I urge you to attend Parliament to ensure this takes place.""The Bill has been introduced in response to a raft of recent cases where courts have ruled””" as we have heard, and I will revert to that shortly. The letter goes on:"““These cases have meant British law now imposes fetters on unions in relation to ballots which are unprecedented in Europe””." That piqued my interest. I thought that I had to respond to my constituent because, unlike Members of Parliament in former times, I believe in writing back to my constituents and taking an interest in that in which they wish me to take an interest. I am nothing if not a servant of my constituents. I therefore read the Bill and the explanatory notes. Paragraph 6 of the explanatory notes, which, I believe, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington wrote, states:"““A number of recent judicial decisions have revealed a degree of uncertainty on the scope and application of section 232B—for example, in the meaning of 'accidental' in subsection (1)(b). The cases have also highlighted, among other things, that the section does not apply to errors, however minor, in the giving of notice under section 226A or 234A. It remains unclear where the burden of proof lies in the event of a dispute as to whether an error involves loss of the protection of section 219.””" Yet, as we have heard in the debate, the Bill creates a new uncertainty. Those provisions of trade union law have been in place for the past two decades and more, and they are well understood by the courts and the legal system. Will introducing the new test of ““substantial compliance”” help the unions? I do not think so. It will help create uncertainty and it will help lawyers, but it will not help the trade unions. I say that as someone who is broadly a supporter of trade unions and their legitimate right to use their economic power to withdraw their labour if that is the collective democratic will. As a supporter in principle of the right to strike, I think that the Bill is wrong because it creates a new uncertainty where certainty had been garnered over time. As a supporter of trade unions, I think that the measure's aim is wrongful; as a supporter of employers, I do not believe that their time should be taken up in instructing lawyers and coping with new uncertainty. They need some certainly for their business planning. Is the Bill necessary? Paragraph 7 of the explanatory notes states:"““In May 2010 an interim injunction was granted by McCombe J in British Airways plc v. UNITE the Union on the basis of alleged failure to comply with the provisions of section 231 of the 1992 Act regarding information about the result of a ballot. The Court of Appeal… reversed that decision.””" It threw out the injunction. The explanatory notes continue:"““Smith LJ stated that 'it appears to me very likely that the judge at trial would hold that there had been substantial compliance'””." The explanatory notes cite a case as the mischief that necessitated the Bill, when it actually proves the opposite. Paragraph 7 goes on to say that in paragraph 149 of the judgment, Lord Justice Smith"““observed: 'I consider that the policy of this part of the Act is not to create a series of traps or hurdles for the Union to negotiate. It is to ensure fair dealing between employer and Union and to ensure a fair, open and democratic ballot'… However, the other two members of the Court reached their decision on different grounds.””" The hon. Gentleman's case is that a mysterious uncertainty remains over the effect of insubstantial errors on the operation of the ballot and notice provisions, but I think there is no such uncertainty. It seems to me that the Court of Appeal ruled fairly and squarely in favour of discharging that injunction. The mischief cited as a reason for introducing the Bill seems, when one gives it close examination and reads it with some degree of care, not to be a mischief at all.