Proceeding contribution from David Nuttall (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 22 October 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill.
Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill
I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Mr Speaker is most upset that he has not been able to stay and listen to the rest of this interesting debate, but he will be able to read it later. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who raises an interesting question. The point was made earlier that the provision might be a Trojan horse. If we go down the path of referring to matters as substantially complied with, or saying that, taken together, there has been substantial compliance, there is a danger that it leaves open a gaping hole. What is not substantially compliant? What should we do if someone complies with their health and safety policy for 51 weeks, but not in the other week? Such an approach does not make sense. During detailed examination of clause 1(3), I shall consider whether the Bill takes us any further forward.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 516 c1223
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Ballots Industrial disputes Injunctions Trade unions Torts Strikes British Airways Unite
- Legislation
- Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:19:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672050
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672050
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_672050