---

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

I am being tempted by people who are more expert in the law than I am to comment on matters that they know far more about than I do. My hon. Friends can take it as read that I agree with them on any matter with regard to the law, because they are in a far better position to argue their case than I would be. I am still warming to my theme of how the intentions of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington can better be advanced. His supporters in the trade union movement also take exception to the definition in legislation of ““accidental””. We can all probably accept the definition of making a difference to the result. If a certain number of ballot papers were affected, all of which voted one way, but the result would not have changed, the wording in the current law of,"““on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot””" is perfectly clear. From that starts the frustration. The issue is the ““accidental”” point. If the hon. Gentleman attacked that problem, as he sees it, by instilling some definition of ““accidental”” in the Bill, his supporters might find that a more fruitful way forward. In the case of BA, which he quoted most during his speech, the judge, summing up his ruling to grant an injunction, said:"““I do not consider that there is evidence capable either of establishing that UNITE held a reasonable belief in the entitlement to vote of all its members, or enabling it to rely on an 'accidental failure' within section 232B.””" The point that Unite was making was that any failings in its ballot were unintentional, and that that met the definition of ““accidental””. The judge said in his conclusion:"““In my judgment, an unintentional failure, as it was categorised by””—" Unite—"““in the circumstances of this case, cannot be regarded as an accidental failure within the meaning of that section, even applying a purposive construction to its provisions.””" Therefore, the problem for Unite was that it did not get over the first hurdle of ““accidental””. The problem was not, as the hon. Gentleman said, in relation to the test of"““on a scale unlikely to affect the result of the ballot””—" the judge did not even get to that—but that, as far as the judge was concerned, Unite had not got over the ““accidental”” hurdle. The hon. Gentleman's unhappiness with the existing legislation can be only with the definition of ““accidental””. If he wishes to move things forward, from his perspective, I suggest that he does so by instilling a definition of ““accidental”” that meets his requirements.