Skip to main content

1-20 of 294 results for subject:"Conditions of employment"

Department X
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Subject X
Industrial relations

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (294)
More

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Industrial relations (294)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Deposited by
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Type
Deposited papers
Date
29 June 2009
Reference
DEP2009-1901
House
House of Commons
Deposited by
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Type
Deposited papers
Date
3 June 2009
Reference
DEP2009-1616
House
House of Commons

Estimates of what the company requires in cash to modernise will vary from source to source. I would say only two things. Modernisation is not a once-off. Modernisation of a company or business has to be ongoing to meet the changing market needs and demands in which the company is...

Member
Lord Mandelson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c971
House
House of Lords

That may well be, but that is not part of my experience, unlike that of the noble Lord. Surely to goodness, as time goes on we should all learn from our mistakes, whether we were in opposition and are now in government or the other way around. I hope that...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1048-9
House
House of Lords

The Royal Mail board does not support the privatisation of Royal Mail, which, among other reasons, is why the Government are not proposing to do so.

Member
Lord Mandelson (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c971
House
House of Lords

To sum up, "may" does mean "shall". Good, at least we have got that clear. The Minister has indeed satisfied me, except in one major respect: he has not settled the argument between the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and myself on whether we will end up with a privatised company....

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1046
House
House of Lords

This amendment is grouped with Amendments 60 and 62, which are all about retrospectivity. The amendments are clear enough; they seek to limit the retrospective nature of these powers to the date that the Government have indicated that they hope will become the basis for any transfer. Of course, the...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1026-7
House
House of Lords

My Amendment 51 is a probing amendment about the ongoing state of the RMPP. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who has Amendment 52 in the group, will probably be just as interested in the answer as I will be. Indeed, my amendment raises many of the same questions...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1042-3
House
House of Lords

Clause 17: Division of the RMPP into different sections Amendment 51 51: Clause 17, page 8, line 42, leave out subsection (1)

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1042
House
House of Lords

I think that the best way I can sum up that response is that it is a stout defence which requires study. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 48 withdrawn. Amendment 49 not moved. House resumed.

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1028
House
House of Lords

These amendments relate to the provision for orders made under Clauses 16, 17, and 18 to have retrospective effect. The provision for retrospectivity in relation to orders made under those clauses is an important protection for scheme members. It is also necessary to ensure effective co-ordination of the proposals in...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1027-8
House
House of Lords

I am grateful for the dinner break, which gave me a chance to sort out some of these papers. Amendment 50 proposes a guarantee, which would mean an obligation made by the state to underwrite the new public scheme if it is wound up. In the case of an ordinary...

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1036
House
House of Lords

Amendment 50 50: Clause 16, page 8, line 40, at end insert— "( ) If a new public scheme is wound up, its liabilities shall be guaranteed by the Treasury."

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1035
House
House of Lords

Some interesting issues have been raised. Perhaps I can say first to my noble friend Lord Clarke that Amendment 55 is grouped with this amendment and extends the proposition in respect of the guarantee not just to look at the new public scheme, but that: ""If the RMPP or any...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1037-8
House
House of Lords

I am afraid that we on this side, the very few, cannot agree with either of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. We do not support the extension of a full government guarantee for any future failure of the ongoing RMPP. Instead, we hope that the reorganisation...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1036
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may help my noble friend on two points. On the issue of the Secretary of State having a section of the RMPP fund, I stress that that is a contingency provision if it is not possible to set up in the time available a separate scheme, which is...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1039
House
House of Lords

I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in referring to Amendment 55, which, because of my ineptitude or stupidity, I did not speak to in a meaningful way. I saw the links between the responsibility for any scheme that was wound up as being much the same and I...

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1038-9
House
House of Lords

That is very helpful. Another consequence of a segment going bust is the fact that the Pension Protection Fund, as I understand it, would limit any increases to 2.5 per cent. If that is wrong, perhaps my noble friend will tell me. I am grateful for the information about how...

Member
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1039
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the Minister. I think that I now have it, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 53 withdrawn. Amendments 54 and 55 not moved.

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1052
House
House of Lords

This has been an interesting debate which has strayed beyond the specifics of the amendment. I shall just say this in relation to the pensions holiday: it was my understanding that the legislation of the previous Government put pension schemes in this position. That may have not been dealt with...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
31 March 2009
Reference
709 c1050-1
House
House of Lords