Proceeding contribution from David Winnick (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 4 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Employment Bill [Lords].
Employment Bill [Lords]
Two hon. Members have justified clause 19, as the Minister will do. The GMB, of which I am a long-standing member, has sent us a note on various items. Its general secretary, who presumably knows what he is talking about, states:"““Clause 19… is totally inadequate.””" He goes on to say that it will provide BNP members with"““more protection than any other trade unionist and unions would be financially liable for any loss of earnings a BNP member might incur””." That is why new clause 6, although I understand all its difficulties, is a better route to take to exclude the sort of people that unions want to exclude than clause 19.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 482 c212
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Contracts Ballots Climate change Employment Industrial relations Industrial disputes Information Employment agencies Leave Protection Membership Minimum wage Political parties Redundancy Tribunals Trade unions Strikes Unfair dismissal British National Party Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen
- Legislation
- Employment Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:25:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505855
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505855
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505855