Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Jane Ellison

Main Page: Jane Ellison (Conservative - Battersea)

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Jane Ellison Excerpts
Friday 22nd October 2010

(14 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes an extraordinarily good and wise point. This would have been a better Bill if it had sought to raise that cap and made unions responsible for their unlawful errors.

Jane Ellison Portrait Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
- Hansard - -

As I might not get the chance to make my own contribution, I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my concern that, throughout this debate, this new concept of “substantial compliance” has not been properly addressed. It has been introduced to us in this small, “minor-errors Bill”, but it is actually a big idea and quite a concerning idea. However, at no point has anyone on the Labour Benches risen to make any attempt at giving us a definition. This debate would have been a great deal more substantial had someone attempted to put some flesh on the bones of that small phrase.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Jacob Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is spot-on. We had a discussion about that on this side of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) elucidated for us what was meant by “substantial”, and said that in law, it meant an 80:20 level. I am not lawyer, but I was interested by that.