Skip to main content

1-20 of 81 results for subject:"Work notices"

Subject X
Apprentices

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Apprentices (81)

Publisher


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

Lords report stage fourth day. Amendment 154 disagreed to on division (85 to 127). Amendments 156 to 158 agreed to. Bill, as amended, ordered to be printed (HL Bill 129). (Part 2 of 2).

Lead member
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch; Lord Leong; Lord Katz
Answering member
Lord Hunt of Wirral; Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Department
Department for Business and Trade
Type
Debates on bills
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 cc323-376
House
House of Lords

Moved by

Lord Carter of Haslemere

154: Leave out Clause 113

Member
Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c323
House
House of Lords

Amendment 154 in my name seeks to remove Clause 113 from the Bill. Clause 113 was tabled at the 11th hour at Commons Report and gives the Secretary of State the power to bring legal proceedings in the employment tribunal, and to do so not because the Secretary of State...

Member
Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 cc323-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He has spoken with great eloquence and killer arguments. I agree with him, so none of us needs to speak for very long.

As he has said, this clause was added late...

Member
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c325
House
House of Lords

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a barrister who occasionally practices in employment law. Secondly, in Committee on 18 June, Hansard recalls that I described the Bill as

“a complete Horlicks … truly bizarre”

and

“absolutely beyond belief

”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. 2048.]

I am amazed at my moderation. Nothing I have heard...

Member
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 cc325-6
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I cannot match the peculiar tones of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, but I do agree with the thrust of his remarks. Noble Lords often oppose clauses in government Bills; sometimes noble Lords are alarmed by such clauses, but, very occasionally, it is appropriate to say that a...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 cc326-8
House
House of Lords

My Lords, there are several styles of advocacy and we have had a good experience of some of them this evening, but in every way those who have spoken before me have been devastating in their unpicking of the ludicrous nature of the clause that the noble Lord, Lord Carter...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c328
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I hope that the devastating interventions that we have heard so far will make the Government rethink. They deserve the ridicule being poured on them. I just want to make two additional points.

Clause 113 completely undermines the Government’s idea that the Bill is all about enhancing workers’ rights...

Member
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c329
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before and I apologise for entering these debates at this late stage. Indeed, I start by saying that I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, to leave out Clause 113. As he...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c329
House
House of Lords

Perhaps the noble Lord could explain how it is envisaged that the Secretary of State will know that such a worker has a claim and should win.

Member
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

I do not understand why the Secretary of State should not have that information as a matter of public record, or why he should not have become aware of it. Plainly, if the Secretary of State and his department do not have the faintest idea about the case, they are...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

Is it really appropriate for a Secretary of State to insist that the circumstances relating to an individual are publicly exposed—subject to cross-examination, subject to a public judgment—when the individual whose private rights are the subject of those proceedings wishes, no doubt for good reason, that they not be so...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

I venture to suggest that in some circumstances it might be, but I add an important point, which is that my party has been involved in discussions with the Government about the protection of such a worker.

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

Ah!

Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

There is nothing secret about any such discussions. They relate to anonymity for such a worker and the restrictions on publicity that might protect such a worker from exactly the dangers and difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests and envisages. But the Secretary of State might, in a...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

This is a very important matter. Surely the answer to his concern that the individual case may raise wider, broader issues is that it is absolutely inevitable in those circumstances that there will be other affected workers, one of whom no doubt will

bring proceedings. We do not need the...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c330
House
House of Lords

There might be others. Then again, there might not. I quite accept that a Secretary of State would have to weigh up very carefully the competing considerations in favour of the public interest in having a point determined against the private interest of the worker concerned in not being involved...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c331
House
House of Lords

I am sorry for interrupting the noble Lord’s developing argument. He talks about anonymity; that is presumably so that the individual can have his case subsumed by the Government without his name being known. Is the noble Lord then going on to suggest that he will have to give evidence...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c331
House
House of Lords

Such protections as would be afforded would depend on the individual case and on such measures as the tribunal thought appropriate; they might indeed include anonymity or witness protection in an extreme case. I do not believe that that is likely, but I do believe that the right of the...

Member
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 cc331-2
House
House of Lords

Can I ask for the noble Lord’s assistance? He mentioned that, according to subsection (3),

“the proceedings are to be proceeded with as if they had been brought by the worker”.

Does he think that that means that if the worker decides to withdraw the proceedings, they are to be treated as...

Member
Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 July 2025
Reference
848 c332
House
House of Lords