---

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

My hon. Friend is right, because rather than deal with the matters raised in the judgment, such as the definition of ““accidental””, the Bill seeks to introduce a novel concept of whether there had been ““substantial compliance”” with something. I shall now deal with the next subsection, if Madam Deputy Speaker will allow me. Subsection (5) deals with the burden of proof. The existing legislation under section 232B of the 1992 Act contains no subsection (5), so this would be a new insertion into the original provision. Subsection (5) states:"““In any proceedings in which reliance is placed on this section, any failure to comply with a provision mentioned in subsection (2) is to be treated as meeting the terms of subsection (1)(b) unless the contrary is proved.””" In simple terms, that means that the burden of proof is being placed completely on the employer, who will have to prove this novel concept of what constitutes ““substantial compliance””. As has been said this morning, that arrangement is entirely the wrong way round. It is and has always been incumbent on the trade unions to show that they are complying with the requirements of the law, because it, unusually, exempts them from the liabilities that otherwise exist under British law.