division_name: Employment Bill
motion: <p class="" pid=".864.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".864.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">Earlier this afternoon, we heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the steps that he has taken to deliver a stable economic framework and thus to ensure that the United Kingdom is better placed than any other major industrial economy to withstand difficult times in the world economy. On the basis of that foundation of economic stability, our priority is now to deliver a high-skill, high-productivity economy. Productivity is not about working people into the ground; it is about skilled people in high-performance workplaces, where employers and employees work together in an effective partnership.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".872.0/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid=".872.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">"this House regrets that a wider debate has not taken place on how the benefits and burdens arising from the Employment Bill are shared between individuals and the workplace; declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because, although it contains welcome measures which promote family friendly practices in the workplace and which seek to improve dispute resolution procedures, it depends excessively on secondary legislation which is likely to impose significant extra burdens on business, especially small businesses; and because it will impose extra costs on business, further damaging British competitiveness at a time when manufacturing industry is already in a fourth successive quarter of recession."</p>
  
  <p pid=".929.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid=".929.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 134, Noes 311.</p>