---

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

There is a real danger of that. One of the reasons it would be wrong for us to pass this Bill in its current form is that it would damage the standing of the trade unions. There is a real risk that they will find it more difficult to recruit new members if they are seen to be moving back to the 1970s, and if there is such a return, there is a real risk that our economic competitiveness will be damaged. Before I deal with which groups might be affected by this measure—it is important that we examine that and consider who will be affected outside this House if the Bill is allowed to pass into law—I shall address the requirements of subsection (5). Placing the burden of proof on to the employer would be a major change and such a provision was not in the previous legislation. I have heard no good reason this morning why it would be a sensible way to proceed. Clause 2, which deals with the short title of the Bill and commencement, is relatively uncontroversial. However, it might be suggested that the period of one month before the legislation comes into force is not sufficient. Clause 2(3) contains a fairly unusual provision. It states:"““This Act applies in relation to industrial action taking place (or proposed to take place) on or after the day on which it comes into force.””" That leaves the definition of what ““proposed to take place”” means open to some doubt.