I seek clarification on the clause. It says quite clearly:

“the individual would lose his livelihood or suffer other exceptional hardship by reason of not being, or ceasing to be, a member of the union.”

As the Committee is aware, our proposal is to replace “other exceptional hardship” by “any material financial disadvantage.” The Government have got themselves into a bit of a fix over this. They are meant to be the protectors of all employees, but here they are, sectioning out those who perhaps a union does not agree with, for political reasons, in a rather pernicious manner. I should have thought that, in this economic decline, masterminded over the past 10 years and now, hopefully, reaching its culmination under the iron Chancellor, that everybody’s employment rights should be paramount. It is the heavy hand of a rather arrogant Government to suggest that, in legislation, they can decide what exceptional hardship, as opposed to material hardship, is.

I listened to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye’s questioning of what material hardship would be, suggesting that “any material financial disadvantage” could cover almost anything. Perhaps it can, but I suggest that a disadvantage is losing one’s job, being unable to keep up one’s mortgage repayments and the effect that that might have on family life. These are very serious issues and I find it quite extraordinary that the Opposition are seeking clarification on a matter which is more usually within the remit of a Labour party that purports to support employees.