Skip to main content

1-20 of 918 results for subject:Redundancy

Subject X
Small businesses

Type

-
Early day motions (2)
+ Legislation (2) + Acts (1)
-
Public acts (1)
+ Bills (1) + Public bills (1)
-
Government bills (1)
+ Members' contributions (872)
-
Business questions (3)
-
Maiden speeches (8)
-
Oral answers to questions (13)
+ Oral questions (14)
-
Topical questions (1)
-
Points of order (1)
-
Proceeding contributions (829)
+ Parliamentary committees (10) + Committee proceedings (8)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (1)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (2)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (4)
-
Second Reading Committee proceedings (1)
-
Select Committee reports (1)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (1)
+ Parliamentary papers (4)
-
Command papers (2)
-
Consultation papers (Government responses) (1)
-
Deposited papers (1)
-
House of Commons papers (1)
-
Impact assessments (1)
-
White papers (1)
+ Parliamentary proceedings (25) + Debates (18)
-
Adjournment debates (2)
+ Committee proceedings (8)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HC) (1)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (2)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (4)
-
Second Reading Committee proceedings (1)
+ Legislative debates (13)
-
Debates on bills (12)
-
Debates on delegated legislation (1)
-
Opposition days (2)
-
Questions for short debate (1)
+ Statements (6) + Oral statements (2)
-
Ministerial statements (2)
-
Written statements (4)
+ Parliamentary questions (26)
-
Business questions (3)
+ Oral questions (14)
-
Topical questions (1)
-
Written questions (9)
+ Research briefings (4) + Commons Briefing papers (2)
-
Briefing papers on bills (1)
-
Commons Debate packs (1)
+ Lords Library Briefings (1)
-
Lords Library Briefings - Bills (1)

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Small businesses (918)

Publisher


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

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the number of SMEs that have cut jobs since November 2024.

Asked by
Lord Mott (Conservative)
Answering body
Department for Business and Trade
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
2 March 2026
Reference
HL14741
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his amendments. I thank the Minister and her team for the way in which they have entertained and thought through some of the key points made by my noble friend. As he rightly pointed out,...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1961
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, would amend Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for...

Member
Lord Leong (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1961-2
House
House of Lords

I apologise for intervening, but is the Minister saying that R3 stated that it was against this amendment?

Member
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1962
House
House of Lords

The R3 website said that it was concerned about the amendment because it may devalue a company’s valuation on an ongoing basis because of the day-one rights accorded to employees. That is what it said on the website.

Member
Lord Leong (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1962
House
House of Lords

Lords report stage second day. Amendment 49 agreed to on division (304 to 160). Amendments 51, 53 to 66, 68 to 72, 76 to 87, and 89 to 93 agreed to. Amendment 96 agreed to on division (248 to 150). Amendment 97 disagreed to on division (100 to 136). Amendment...

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
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1852-1969
House
House of Lords

Moved by

Lord Sharpe of Epsom

49: Leave out Clause 23 and insert the following new Clause—

“Right not to be unfairly dismissed: reduction of qualifying period and introduction of initial period of employment

Schedule 3 contains provision—

(a) reducing the qualifying period of employment for unfair dismissal and introducing provisions in respect of an...

Member
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1852-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, the Government’s intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness, dignity and security at work are essential pillars of a just society. However, the approach taken in this Bill, particularly the changes to unfair dismissal rights and the introduction of a statutory probationary period, is...

Member
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1853-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 50 and 67, which, like the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has just spoken to, which I have also added my name to, relate to day-one unfair dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Katz,...

Member
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Conservative; Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1854-7
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 50 and Amendment 51, to which I have added my name. I agree with the case that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made, and with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.

I point out that...

Member
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1857-8
House
House of Lords

If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?

Member
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1858
House
House of Lords

My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause...

Member
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1858-1860
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I broadly support this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. My noble friend Lord Vaux’s more straightforward Amendment 50 would reduce the length of the qualifying period from two years to a minimum of...

Member
Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1860-1
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas...

Member
Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1861
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.

Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are...

Member
Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1861-2
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will begin with an explanation. When I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in Committee, there was concern about a risk assessment that said that if there was no probation period, it would be quite difficult for some employers to take people...

Member
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1862-3
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, as the initial period of employment is so important to both employers and employees. I declare my interest in the register as the part owner of an SME veterinary practice that employs 140 employees. I am one of those people who will...

Member
Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1863-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I will be brief—not quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, but I shall do my best, and I promise to keep away from the police and definitely the clergy. I had lunch with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of...

Member
Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1864
House
House of Lords

My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.

The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need...

Member
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 cc1864-7
House
House of Lords

Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?

Member
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 July 2025
Reference
847 c1867
House
House of Lords