I, too, have some sympathy with a number of the amendments raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, I have an issue with Amendments 87 and 88. Most organisations have a very clear understanding of whether their performance is being detrimentally affected. Having "significant" in the amendment raises the dilemma of what this means and how it would be measured. It is usually how the order book is placed and all the rest of it. In my years as a trade union official and working with a sector skills council, I have never experienced that there has been a necessary adjective that needs to be there.
There is something a bit perverse about changing "insufficiency of work" to, ""the inability to provide sufficient work","
as though the employer was conniving in some way not to have this work. Most businesses, whether small or large, operate in a transparent way, where you know whether there is business coming in or not. I personally have great deal of difficulty with both of these amendments in particular.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c64-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:26:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571388
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571388
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_571388