Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 77.
“I appreciate that that is in the Bill. One of the points that I made is that there is an attempt to try to square the circle with that provision. The problem is that there is an inherent contradiction: if exceptions are being allowed, to what extent can the employee, effectively, bank that level of certainty? I think that there are reasonable arguments for why there is that level of flexibility. A paradigm is created, however, by giving certainty about banded hours and then creating exemptions to that. Therefore, there may not necessarily be a reliability that can be banked by the employee.”
“If the Member is dazed and confused, I have achieved at least one objective.”
“In conclusion, to refer to a Johnny Nash song that was often used in 'A Question of Sport', I find that 'There Are More Questions Than Answers' arising from the Bill. I do not doubt the intentions of the Member, but I am not sure that this legislation is the best way forward. As I think that the intentions are good, I will not necessarily seek to divide the House, but a range of answers is needed, particularly on repercussive matters. I do not know the answer to that. I do not know whether the Minister is in a better position to address that in his remarks or whether, as a cricket commentator might say, we are in the "corridor of uncertainty" with this legislation.”
“I know that there are exceptions within that and that, if we have a temporary situation, an exception is provided to employers to say that that need not apply to them. In theory, that could deal with the fact that a lot of businesses — particularly hospitality businesses — find that the situation is very different in the middle of the summer than it is in the autumn, for example. There does not, however, appear to be any qualification for when that can be applied. Is it simply based on the judgement of the employer? How do we know when this will kick in and when it can be validly used? We need to examine closely what legislation should be put in place for zero-hours contracts.”
“We have seen that in the hospitality industry, where, because of regulations, the situation can change very dramatically from one month to the next. Flexibility is needed for employers and employees over the hours that they work. In moving to banded provisions that are based purely on the last three months of work, there is a danger that we will create a level of rigidity that is not to anyone's benefit.”
“I heard the Member even without the advantage of the microphone. He makes a very valid point. We should be encouraging a situation in which there is an advantage to employers, rather than almost incentivising them to go the wrong way and deal with somebody on a very casual basis. I have concerns about that. <BR /> <BR />I understand that, if someone is brought in and then told, "We have no work for you", there is a desire to have compensation for that. I am sure that the sponsor will deal with this in her summation, although I tried to intervene earlier, but it is a little bit unclear where, for example, the three-hourly rate derives from. I am interested to know the genesis of that. <BR /> <BR />There can be shifting grounds, particularly in COVID times.”
“That seems a worthy enough concept, but it is difficult to translate into certainty in legislation. Nowhere is it indicated how that is to be judged. Where is international best practice? How is that to be established? <BR /> <BR />I indicated that we need to make provision to ensure that more cavalier employers do not behave in such a way, while protecting the vast majority of employers who are responsible. Yet, when we look at the qualifying period of three months, what is to stop an employer who takes a more cavalier approach from, for example, simply not issuing a contract in the first place and offering only very casual employment, or from using someone for two or two and a half months and then making sure that that person does not work after that period and therefore does not reach the qualifying period?”
“For example, at clause 4(1), new article 59D(6) requires the Department for the Economy, in making regulations, specifically to consult trade unions and lobby organisations that protect workers' rights. I have no problem with that, because that is the right thing to do, but there is no corresponding indication that consultation should take place also with employer organisations. Moreover, if we are looking at certainty, the other limb of that indicates that there is a requirement on the Department to follow:”
“Despite the key relevance of zero-hours contracts to the hospitality sector, there had been no consultation or discussion with bodies such as Hospitality Ulster. The most that the sponsor highlighted was the fact that she had discussed the issue with a hotelier in County Fermanagh. That is no substitute for the level of discussion needed with the important trade bodies in the sector. It is perfectly right that the sponsor consulted the likes of trade unions and other bodies, but there needs to be a balance. Without that, can we be confident that what is in front of us is fit for purpose? Do we know what the repercussive consequences are for employers? No; I do not think that we can draw that conclusion. <BR /> <BR />The lack of balance is highlighted in some of the Bill's provisions.”
“From the point of view of employers, there is a benefit to having flexibility in patterns of work — indeed, a requirement. We must also consider the balance in the economy as a whole. As it is drafted, the legislation falls down on a number of those components. Giving evidence to the Committee, the sponsor of the Bill highlighted her two-month consultation, and it is clear that there was active representation both from lobby groups who are hostile to zero-hours contracts and from trade unions. When the Bill sponsor was asked specifically about the other side of the coin, by which I mean the situation for employers, it was fairly clear, by her own admission, that there had not been any active engagement with, for example, the CBI, the Institute of Directors or the Federation of Small Businesses.”
“However, looking at the wider aspects of zero-hours contracts in terms of what elements should be included in legislation, there are a number of components that need to be there. We need legislation that is thoughtful, that is well consulted on, that is balanced and of which we know what the implications are if we embrace it. Legislation must provide certainty to workers and employers. It must protect workers and ensure that they are not exploited, as some are by zero-hours contracts. It must bear down on cavalier or unscrupulous employers and take measures against them. <BR /> <BR />On the flip side of the coin, there are many who benefit from zero-hours contracts, who enjoy the flexibility and whose lifestyle it suits. Their rights have to be protected as well.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is the first real opportunity to look at this subject since the previous consultation, which was conducted under Dr Farry, who concluded that he wanted to see some reform of exclusivity, but also came to the conclusion that zero-hours contracts should not be banned but perhaps be more regularised. I accept that we had the opportunity in Committee to hear the presentation from and question the sponsor of the Bill. I thank her for that. There is no doubt that the intentions of the sponsor are good. <BR /> <BR />To start off on a positive note, there are elements that I welcome. For example, it is right that we look closely at the issue of exclusivity. A situation where somebody is effectively tied in with a specific zero-hours contract and cannot work for others is clearly in need of reform.”
“The subject of zero-hours contracts is very important. From a legislative point of view, it is critical to employees, but also to employers and the wider economy. We are all conscious that, at the moment, in the House of Commons the Prime Minister is answering questions on the Sue Gray report. We delude ourselves if we believe that the attention of the word is focused entirely on us in this Chamber. I suspect that people will have turned off the debate on the Sue Gray report by the time the Minister is on his feet. I am sure that they will want to hear his words on the subject.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. It is disappointing that there has not been a direct response as yet. Have there been other discussions with the Treasury on any other financial help, such as schemes beyond those that have been announced already, that can be given to hard-pressed families at this time, particularly to assist with rising fuel costs?”
“I wish that no one in Northern Ireland had to benefit from the Bill, because I am sure that it is the fervent wish of us all that no mother or father should lose a child, but, sadly in life, we are faced with circumstances where there is family bereavement. It is important that we give help to those who are in that place. Through this process, we have reached a situation where the Bill legislatively, practically, operationally and for a host of other reasons, is fit for purpose. All who have contributed to it in whatever way can look back on it with a sense of pride and see families benefit from it. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to support the amendments.”
“To be fair, assurances were given by officials that it is the Department's feeling that the measures have to coincide with the tax year and that the earliest possible date would be April 2024. That is the aim, and no barrier to it should be put in place. I understand that, where something is left open-ended, it leads to concerns that it is simply being pushed into the future. Dr Archibald's approach in amendment Nos 19 and 21 to having a date in 2026 when the payments will be brought in is not unreasonable. I am happy to support those amendments too, and I look forward to the Bill becoming groundbreaking legislation. <BR /> <BR />It is an odd situation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whatever our differences at Consideration Stage, we shared across the House a determination that, in order to meet them, those complex requirements should not become an obstacle to those for whom the original Bill sought to provide. Therefore, we were able, with those exceptions, to put in place in 2022 what could immediately kick in. That was the right approach. <BR /> <BR />I have a slight reservation about the time limit, which I indicated in Committee. We need to ensure that, as we project ahead to the cut-off point, which is the date by which this must happen, it should not become a point of which it is said, "We do not need to move until that point".”
“The Minister's amendments in relation to that qualification period showed a creative approach. There were practical difficulties with HMRC in reaching that qualification point. The approach that has been taken is not simply to project the level of wages, because that figure cannot simply be plucked out of the air. It is retrospective, as it covers the previous eight weeks, but it also projects ahead to the following eight weeks to determine the level of wages. That is the best possible solution. Further work will need to be done on bereavement, miscarriage and day-1 bereavement in order to make secondary legislation through regulations.”
“Both bereaved parents will benefit directly, whether the father is a husband or partner. It is important for all members of the family to benefit. It is right that there is not an inadvertent focus on one parent — the mother. It is right to acknowledge that the depth of loss is felt by the father and the mother. Therefore, the corrections that have been proposed in the amendments are right and proper. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, there was a difficult squaring of the circle in trying to make sure that the will of the Assembly, as expressed at Consideration Stage, that there be a day-1 right was carried out. In the appalling circumstances where someone starts work on a Monday and, later that day, finds out that their child has died, that eventuality is covered.”
“In piecing together that legislative jigsaw, the Minister needed to ensure that what was there was legislatively and operationally fit for purpose. Furthermore — this was a hurdle for the Minister and his officials to overcome — so that we were not providing a particular right but then creating major problems for those who will benefit from it, it needed to be compatible with HMRC. <BR /> <BR />I commend Dr Archibald's similar approach to her two amendments. She has reciprocated the Minister's constructive approach and will not move other amendments. That enables a broad consensus to be reached. <BR /> <BR />The amendments deal with three principal issues. First, it is right to make an adjustment so that the bereaved mother is not the only one to benefit.”
“Therefore, the work of the previous and current Ministers to bring the Bill on to the statute book has been vital. The approach that has been taken to the Bill will ensure that the rights that were initially set out — we will come to the amendments that relate to making additional adjustments — will be brought in as soon as is conceivably possible and will take effect from April 2022. <BR /> <BR />As we reach this point, I thank the Minister for the constructive and flexible approach that he has taken since Consideration Stage to make sure that the will of the House — what it wanted to be in the Bill — was able to gain currency in terms of what was fit for purpose in the final legislation. As indicated, the legislation is complicated.”
“Today, perhaps, represents the slightly duller sequel but one that is based on a more harmonious outcome, and, hopefully, today's legislative process will have a happy ending, which is, I believe, particularly important. Across the board, it is vital that we get the legislation right and ensure that it is broadly welcomed. <BR /> <BR />We should always remember that there is no greater tragedy in life than families who lose a young loved one and parents who suffer that bereavement. All of us who have buried a relative know of the pain that occurs, but, when a parent faces that bereavement — the loss of a child —there is not only the great pain of losing a close relation but a sense that it runs against the natural order of things.”
“Listening to the debate, I think that there is a strong possibility of consensus breaking out in the Assembly. As I do not want to risk the erosion of that consensus in any way, I will try to keep my remarks fairly brief in case I accidentally disrupt it. <BR /> <BR />Like the Deputy Chair, I came to the Committee when the process had already started, and I tried to pick up the threads of the movie plot. Extending that analogy, we can look at the difference between Consideration Stage and this stage. At Consideration Stage, there was a bit of a divergence of opinion. To be fair, it was not on what we were looking to achieve but on how we achieved that, and there was some cut-and-thrust debate and disagreement.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have only one question. <BR /> <BR />The Minister highlighted the potential impact of the draft Budget on the skills strategy. He will be aware that the Fiscal Council, which was established by the Finance Minister, was highly critical of the draft Budget. Does he agree with the Fiscal Council's conclusion that the draft Budget lacks strategic direction?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he expand on the part of his statement where he indicated that he is in discussions with Treasury to seek greater end-year flexibility, particularly in light of the problems that have been raised about the restrictions on capital? Are any of the approaches that are being made being coordinated with other devolved institutions?”
“I urge Members to look to the opportunity for refinement at Further Consideration Stage and consider that what is being proposed by the Minister are the best possible solutions to those problems. They are the most pragmatic and appropriate, the least bureaucratic, they make the best use of resources, and they are legally the soundest. <BR /> <BR />I support the Minister's amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whether it is me, the current Minister or other Ministers who are faced with making difficult decisions on where to make cuts, I do not want those to be more than are absolutely necessary for any future Minister. Indeed, I would hope that they could be avoided altogether. However, there is no point in placing additional burdens on ourselves and on front-line services, particularly for our children, when they are not necessary. Let us not over-engineer solutions. Let us have solutions that are appropriate to the issues. <BR /> <BR />These amendments, notwithstanding the broader concerns that the Minister, Members on this side of the House and I have about the Bill as a whole, are about trying to improve what is there and finding pragmatic solutions.”
“If tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds are spent on a route that is not needed, is overreach or involves much more bureaucracy than is needed, that does not happen in a virtual world where additional resources can simply be allocated; it always comes at the expense of something else. <BR /> <BR />It is important and, I think, accepted that, if strategies are to be produced and the amendments are clearly on the basis of those strategies happening as regards integrated education, they should be done in an appropriate and doable manner that ensures that the focus is there and that we do not burden other parts of the education system, whose budget, as we know if the proposed budget goes through, will be diluted by 2% each year, which it can ill afford.”
“Resources are important. From my experience over two decades in the House, the good days, whether in education or anything else, are those when the choices are between which virtuous thing you do. Sadly, given the constraints on resources, which are particularly acute not only in education but in a range of areas, the choices that have to be made by the House or by Ministers are not between the new and good things that they are able to do but between the virtuous things that they have to try to protect and those that they have to cut. <BR /> <BR />Every decision on which resources are spent unnecessarily and bureaucracy is taken to an unnecessary level create an opportunity cost.”
“If you have something that is, by its nature, over-elaborate, it can effectively become so administratively burdensome that it creates a high level of expense. Indeed, there is a risk of that as the Bill is currently drafted. Alternatively, and sometimes in parallel with that, there is a danger that, if the hurdle for what is being produced is seen as too high, it almost becomes a meaningless tick-box exercise, whereby particular pieces of information are produced, but no real credence is given to where the focus of the strategy should be.”
“Obviously, there is a little bit of peace breaking out belatedly in the Chamber on that. Any advance is welcome, but, if we are to ground it in the best possible route, the ministerial amendments are the most appropriate across the board. <BR /> <BR />Finally, based on the reporting mechanisms and monitoring reports that will be brought forward, the ministerial amendments entirely embrace the Bill's principle. There is no attempt to step away from strategies related to that. That is accepted in those amendments. It is about trying to ensure that we have something that is fit for purpose and that we do not either duplicate what is there or over-elaborate on it. What are the dangers of that?”
“Consequently, I am glad that some amendments have been proposed to that, and I hope that Members look beyond the origin of some of the amendments and look at their conciseness and the appropriateness of the drafting.”
“Therefore, the Minister's amendments address the problem with the current construct in the Bill, so that we do not have a wide range of superfluous reports but have the opportunity to, at least, move ahead on a range of those issues in a much more efficient and effective manner. <BR /> <BR />That is also tied in with the concept of the duty and the considerations that will be placed on education bodies. When it comes to the potential bureaucracy, cost and appropriateness, the overarching responsibility is on the EA and the Department to consider those issues, but, largely speaking, to expect CCMS and a range of other bodies effectively to be the advocates for integrated schools is inappropriate, in the same way that it would be inappropriate to expect NICIE to be the conduit and advocate for maintained schools.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the changes that have been made, but the Minister's amendment that puts in the new clause is the best way of achieving that and the most appropriate way of doing it. It does not violate the intentions of the Bill in relation to the provision of new schools, albeit that those new schools will be limited in number. Again, it puts it on a more sound footing. <BR /> <BR />It is also the case that information needs to be gathered and consultation needs to be done. Often, one of the criticisms around development proposals, capital builds or actions around new schools is that, at times, the process does not deliver quickly enough for people. That is often a criticism.”
“Anybody who has looked at their own constituency or has been in ministerial office knows that any announcements about new schools or examinations can sometimes be fraught with difficulties, because, although welcomed by whatever school obtains it, there are then 10 other voices saying, "Why was x, y and z not done in my area?". There is always some concern or suspicion about what lies behind any decision, but people should, at least, be able to reassure themselves that there is a level playing field and an equal position, meaning that those who have been unfortunate and missed out still have as good a chance in the next tranche of announcements or actions.”
“However, there is the opportunity for flexibility that would certainly not be there if the amendment was defeated and that may not be there if it is not moved today. That is the better route within that. <BR /> <BR />Much has been made of the current — it is still current — clause 7 and, indeed, much of the consternation at Second Stage was in reference to it. I appreciate that there has been a common-ground shift of opinion on the definition of "a new school". That, at least, is to be welcomed across the board. Any new school, when it is agreed, comes with a level of capital commitment.”
“I am not sure how easy that would be, because it is also the case that, at Further Consideration Stage, there is the opportunity for some level of adjustment. Would it be considered that a completely new clause at Further Consideration Stage would move beyond a simple adjustment to what is there? It might be regarded as a more fundamental shift in the Bill and run the risk of being ruled out of order, whereas an amendment to proposed new clause 5A and, indeed, the space that could be given to do that is perhaps the more appropriate way. <BR /> <BR />Almost irrespective of what is there, proposed new clause 5A is better constructed because it is tied in and has been drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel to give much more direct legal effect to the position than the other alternatives.”
“I also appreciate that the Deputy Speaker will bring back further information. From my experience in the House, I believe that the proposed new clause 5A is a better construct and is legally a lot more watertight. <BR /> <BR />The other advantage of passing proposed new clause 5A at this stage, compared with not passing it, is that at least there will then be another opportunity to refine it at Further Consideration Stage if there are difficulties. If, however, it is rejected today, there is a restriction in that you cannot reintroduce what you tried to introduce at a previous stage. Therefore, effectively, my reading of it is that a rejection of proposed new clause 5A would largely take a lot of elements off the table, but passing it —”
“As such, while I appreciate that there has been some movement by, for instance, the Bill's sponsor on some of the issues, the wording that has been put forward by the Minister provides better solutions to each of the issues. Perhaps that also reflects that the drafting, particularly from a legal point of view, came from the Office of the Legislative Counsel. As such, the amendments are not designed to diminish the Bill or obfuscate it, but to ensure that what is there is a lot more appropriate <BR /> <BR />I will turn to a few of the specifics. Earlier, we raised concerns about clause 5. The wording of the proposed new clause 5A appears to be a much more sensible construction. To some extent, I know that the SDLP's spokesperson Mr McCrossan has looked with some dilemma at what direction he should go in.”
“Notwithstanding that that fundamental opposition remains, it is incumbent that the action being taken in relation to this group of amendments is to look at where there are flaws in the Bill and at least say, "Let us improve those and correct them". That lies very much at the heart of the amendments that the Minister has tabled in this group. <BR /> <BR />They are amendments that are designed to give a greater legal effect and to be both more competent and less susceptible to legal challenge. They are amendments that are more appropriate for the way forward and that focus on what is necessary so that we do not have an overburdening of bureaucracy.”
“On this side of the House, we feel very much like buses. You wait half an hour for one DUP Member to speak, and then two come along at once. I will try to keep my remarks focused and succinct. <BR /> <BR />In the debates at both the Second Stage and on the first two groups of amendments, irrespective of where your views lie on this legislation, we have had fairly fundamental differences expressed on the key principles of whether the Bill brings forward equality and leads to a level playing field or makes that worse, whether the timing is appropriate or whether it is the right way to do things. <BR /> <BR />Largely speaking, the amendments in group 3 focus on slightly more pragmatic issues. Members from my party and some others have expressed fundamental opposition to elements of the Bill.”
“The Member has raised preferential treatment and has indicated the financial implications. One of the things that have not been mentioned about resources is that, while the focus has been on the direct shift of the pupil premium and the additional in-year budget needs, where there are significant increases in numbers at a school, there will be capital implications. In the same way as a resource shift will take money from other schools to their detriment, if additional capital is required to build extra facilities such as classrooms or whatever, that will be taken out of the capital budget, which will be detrimental to every other school budget.”
“Surely that is a direction that all of us should look to go in when it comes to education.”
“It is the knowledge that the lack of money means that we cannot make the maximum provision for our children. We should be looking to have the maximum front-line resources for all our children, irrespective of what school they go to, what religion or background they are from and whether they come from a completely secular background or from another religion. That should be the driver. The Bill envisages placing additional burdens on schools. I therefore urge Members to join in opposing clauses 4 and 5 in particular. We are not simply removing a particular issue, but through the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Minister's amendment, we have something that is more fit for purpose and ensures that, with regard to area planning in particular, we have equality and a much more collegiate, joined-up approach.”
“As the Minister has highlighted, a range of clauses in the Bill will place an unnecessary burden on schools, both because the consultation, by which I mean that direct engagement, is clearly already happening and information is being produced — indeed, structures are in place to ensure that it happens — and because, if we add unnecessary an burden to our finances for one sector and replicate what is already in place for it, we simply add to the pressures in education. <BR /> <BR />Anyone who has ever been in a position similar to that of the current Minister, and formerly me, knows that one of the greatest worries for Education Ministers — what sometimes keeps them awake at night — is the knowledge of where they are financially and of the pressures. It is not just an abstract concept.”
“With the greatest respect, schools, particularly primary schools, because, generally speaking, children go to the primary school in their local area, are likely to reflect the broad demographics of the area, so to say that those demographics are explicitly excluded from promotion somewhat beggars belief. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 4 and 5 are deeply problematic and deeply damaging.”
“I take that point on board. It reflects what is quite often the case in a wide range of schools in the controlled sector but also the natural mixes that sometimes happen in the maintained sector. For example, at least about 35% or 40% of the pupils at St Columbanus' College in my former constituency have traditionally come from the Protestant community. <BR /> <BR />I take on board what Ms Armstrong says. If we are to make some assessment of the reasonable numbers test, however, and if that assessment is to be genuine, presumably it will not involve some confessional article of faith for each individual.”
“It will create nervousness, maybe, at department level, and it may be felt, "Well, perhaps the safest route is to agree this, irrespective of what the merits are." That is a fundamental flaw. <BR /> <BR />Members from different parties have mentioned an inherent contradiction. Saying that, for a school to be genuinely integrated, there should be a reasonable community mix in the numbers of Protestants and Catholics but, in taking those decisions, making no reference to — indeed, explicitly ignoring — the demographics of on area is inherently contradictory.”
“The Member and I are coming close to agreement on something. I do not know which of us will have to lie down in a darkened room afterwards, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. <BR /> <BR />The Member says that there is concern that, at times, genuine desires to transform become muddied by schools that see it as a lifeboat to preserve themselves, falsely so. The problem is that clauses 4 and 5, simply by saying that there needs to be support for integrated education and for those proposals and by placing an onus on the Education Authority to monitor the success of applications, will create a pressure. It may be felt that the easiest route is to support an application, even if it does not merit it.”
“Let me finish the point and I will give way in a moment. <BR /> <BR />There is a danger that some of those schools will simply grasp on to a transformation proposal and say, "We are an integrated school, and there is a duty to support such schools." Correctly or otherwise, they could feel much less vulnerable to any threat simply by adopting a label.”