Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Jones of Birmingham (Other (affiliation)) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 13 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Employment Bill [HL].


Employment Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may write to noble Lords on why there is a distinction between reimbursement of rental expenditure, which will not fall into the safety net, and direct accommodation provided, which will. That would provide the clarity that noble Lords seek. It would be better than my carrying on telling them what I believe is the distinction and some noble Lords saying that they do not understand it. We could then move on. I will undertake to do that now. I am at pains to point out that we are trying to get people into a neutral position so that the voluntary organisations and those who work for them are no worse off because of the implementation of the national minimum wage legislation. Regulation is to be avoided at all costs but, when it has to apply, let us at least not fall foul of the law of unintended consequences. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c269GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Conditions of employment Criminal investigation Employment Fees and charges Enforcement Fines Employment agencies Powers Membership Minimum wage Political parties Temporary employment Trade unions Shipping Unemployed people Voluntary work Revenue and Customs
Legislation
Employment Bill (HL) 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk