I thank the Minister for her response and echo what she said about taking every opportunity to avoid disruption. I thought that that was the purpose of my amendment—that employers and trade unions can take advantage of certain opportunities for two-way communication to accept the inevitable but minimise damage. I entirely sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about disruption to the public. It is very difficult to have any strike action—you could argue that there was no point in such action—that does not disrupt anybody. We are all here hoping that we can avoid strike action. The suspicion that some of us have is that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent strike action. I am trying to find a small shaft of light to recognise that management and unions find themselves in a difficult position, after a clear mandate, and give them every opportunity of arranging the date so that it is mutually beneficial—if there is such a thing—during a period of strike action. In the light of the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Donaghy
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 10 February 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Trade Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
768 c2262 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2016-02-15 15:40:40 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210106000165
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210106000165
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-02-10/160210106000165