§ INDUCEMENTS RELATING TO UNION MEMBERSHIP OR ACTIVITIES
§ Lords amendment No. 33.
§ Mr. SutcliffeI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 43 and 58.
§ Mr. SutcliffeThis group of amendments makes two sets of changes to the clauses of the Bill that implement the European Court's judgment in the cases of Wilson and Palmer. Let me start with amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has drawn attention to the fact that new section 145B, which would be inserted by clause 28, provides rights to the members of recognised unions only. It considers that, in cases where a union is seeking recognition, new section 145B needs to provide comparable protections to ensure that members have the right not to be offered inducements by the employer for the purpose of securing that their terms will not be determined by collective agreement in the future.
Having looked at the arguments put forward and having consulted the stakeholders, we concluded that the Joint Committee's analysis is correct. So to ensure our compliance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we believe that the scope of new section 145B should be extended. Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 38 make the necessary changes to clause 28.
Let me now describe the second set of amendments, which cover the other nine in the group. In combination, the amendments change the definition of a "worker" for the purposes of new sections 145A to 145E, and for the purposes of the existing sections 146 to 150 of the 1992 Act. The current definition of worker for those purposes is provided in section 296 of the 1992 Act. The Bill covers people "seeking work" and is not limited solely to those in employment. It was never our intention that the protections should extend to those seeking work. Their trade union rights are contained in section 137 of the 1992 Act.
These amendments therefore adjust the definition of worker to ensure that it does not cover those seeking work, thereby ensuring that the rights are confined to 1479 the target group and that overlapping rights for workers seeking employment are not created. The first set of amendments implements a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the second makes necessary technical changes to the Bill. I urge the House again to agree to the amendments.
§ Mr. BellinghamAgain, the Minister has explained clearly that this group of technical amendments flows from the Wilson and Palmer case, and they certainly improve the Bill. In Committee, we discussed at some length the definition of workers who enjoy rights. The Minister is right to say that it was always intended that that should cover all workers in employment. At the time, despite his many civil servants, he did not spot that the provision also unintentionally covered workers seeking employment. The Opposition should have spotted that small anomaly, and I dare say that my colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) should have done so too, but I think that we can be forgiven. There may be a good legal reason to explain why we missed it, but the amendments ensure that the coverage is limited to the target group of those in employment. That must be positive, and we welcome the change.
§ Sir Robert SmithThese amendments prove the worth of our bicameral system, which ensures that errors get spotted before it is too late. I also welcome the fact that the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights have been addressed. That shows how useful it is to have a human rights factor in our legislation, as it means that we can try to get our law right so that people do not need to waste time going to a foreign court to ensure that their rights are implemented.
§ Mr. SutcliffeThese amendments arose from a complicated and complex investigation of the ECHR judgment. That is how the question of the definition came to light, so hon. Members should not be too hard on themselves for not spotting the problem. Members of the House of Lords consider these matters line by line and issue by issue and over many years they have accrued a great deal of expertise. It is right that the processes available in this House enable other bodies to submit their views. The Joint Committee expressed its view very clearly, and we responded with this solution. I admit that the solution does not meet all requirements, but we believe that it is a fair attempt to protect all workers who are affected.