Skip to main content

1-20 of 373 results for subject:Mining

Session X
2006-07

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


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

Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence; Parliamentary committees
Committee
Committee of Public Accounts
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
HC 1094-i 2006-07
House
House of Commons

Does the hon. Gentleman think that unions will be adequately regulated?

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c611
House
House of Commons

I oppose the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on trade unions. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a clever chap, and that he might have learned something from our debates in Committee. If he had at least listened to them he would understand how...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c610-1
House
House of Commons

Yes or no?

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c611
House
House of Commons

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the broader issue concerning the trade union movement—

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c611
House
House of Commons

I shall not give way, as we have covered the point pretty well. I simply do not understand how the wide-ranging exemption for trade unions can be regarded as acceptable. It could lead to a situation whereby a union provides conveyancing services, for example, to its members and the Law...

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c609-10
House
House of Commons

Like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), I have read the Law Society brief. It says that the answer is to limit the exemption to the"““provision of legal services ancillary or incidental to the trade unions' main employment relations functions.””" That is precisely what the hon. Member for Somerton...

Member
David Kidney (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c613
House
House of Commons

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on his amendment, which is the lead amendment in the group. He recognises that in the exemption set out by the Government, there is an issue that needs to be addressed. He has already said that...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c612
House
House of Commons

There is not a yes or no answer. If the hon. Gentleman took the time to understand the subject that he talks about, it might help. I thought that we covered much of the argument in Committee. I am confident that the legal services are properly regulated within the terms...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c611
House
House of Commons

Yes; the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my third point. The hon. Member for North Durham is absolutely correct about there being a separate area of regulation for trade unions via certification. He argued that that is sometimes insufficiently strong and robust to do its job. Nevertheless, it marks trade unions...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c612-3
House
House of Commons

Sorry, as my hon. Friend says, that was last week. Were the hon. Gentleman into that approach, he would embrace something that gives the little people in this society some rights and powers and that puts the consumer, rather than vested interests, at its heart. I am pleased that the...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c595
House
House of Commons

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's arguments for the independence of the chair of the legal services board from the legal profession are strong. However, does he accept that the legal profession should be independent of Government and not be in a situation in which a Government appointee can sack people from...

Member
John Hemming (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c595
House
House of Commons

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is an argument for the legal services board, and particularly its chair, to be seen to be independent of the legal profession?

Member
John Hemming (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c591
House
House of Commons

That argument can certainly be made, but I am saying that it will not apply to all lawyers in all cases. It might apply to certain lawyers; in some circumstances, a lawyer's practice might negate their suitability for the position. That will not, however, be the case in all instances....

Member
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c591-4
House
House of Commons

I shall speak to amendment No. 75, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). This simple amendment is of great importance to this Bill, because it reinforces what the Minister has said throughout its passage about putting the consumer at...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c594
House
House of Commons

That was last week.

Member
Lord Mann (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c594
House
House of Commons

This is an important group of amendments, dealing as it does with the constitution, the consumer panel and the legal services board. I recognise the moves made by the Minister in the direction of other members of the Committee in recognising some of the problems with the Bill. I especially...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c595-7
House
House of Commons

Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is no longer in the Chamber. He described some Members on the Labour Benches as obsessed. He chose his terminology injudiciously; a better description would be ““diligent””. The people who are obsessed in this debate, as they have been throughout...

Member
Lord Mann (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c598-600
House
House of Commons

I would agree except that I do not believe that power under the Bill would be exercised in any real sense unless there was a case of gross misconduct. There may be such cases and one hopes that they do not arise, but one must at least make provision. My...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c597-8
House
House of Commons

I am sad that the Liberals have fallen for that nonsense. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was good in Committee at championing the consumer interest, as was the hon. Gentleman, but he does himself no favours by falling for the old turkey that somehow the...

Member
Lord Beamish (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 October 2007
Reference
464 c595
House
House of Commons