Tom Buchanan
West Tyrone · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“However, the Bill must give hydro operators clarity and confidence, through a sustainable licensing framework with long-term regulatory certainty, to enable them to invest and upgrade, modernise and improve fish pass technology.”
“I note that quite a bit of work in the Bill falls to the Department with regard to monitoring, enforcement and scientific assessment, which will require adequate resourcing. <BR /> <BR />The Bill must strike the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting sensitive freshwater habitats.”
“I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is overdue legislation, which touches on three interlinked systems: commercial fisheries; growing the aquaculture sector; and the wider water environment, with an ambition to modernise regulation while supporting susta…”
“<BR /> <BR />Hydro schemes and hydropower to produce clean energy that will contribute to decarbonisation targets must be catered for in the Bill, with a clear vision for their future expansion. Those are not abstract infrastructure projects but local assets that generate clean renewable energy while supporting employment in rural areas.”
“Minister, under your watch, many miles of posts and wire fencing were put up along the A5 western transport corridor. However, in the past few weeks, a good bit of that has been removed by a mechanical digger and pushed into a pile for dumping.”
“In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,021 lines we hold for Tom Buchanan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 21.
“He highlighted the use of the social farm, which, of course, the Committee visited. Unfortunately, I did not get there that day, but I talked to the folk here about it later. The social farm development and the work that it does for young people with learning disabilities is worth seeing. It is worth seeing exactly what that provides.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr McCann talked of the dedication of the staff who work with young people with learning disabilities and highlighted the Committee's recommendations around the issues of better planned progression to ensure that the young people continue to learn and develop after leaving school. Again, a good point that was raised is that more work must be done in the area. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Mr Anderson noted the cross-cutting nature of the report, across not just Departments but their agencies and other sectors. He talked of the need to widen the definition of education provision to include physical activity, the need for better awareness-raising to support people with learning disabilities in community locations and the better use of community facilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Anna Lo was impressed by Springvale training centre and its post-18 transition programme. She thought that recommendation 5 was very important and said that, from the evidence, there must be person-centred approach, which she said was very important for the future education of those young adults. Of course, a person-centred approach is the way forward for people with a learning disability. For people who need help and support, it is a person-centred approach that will take them forward and give them the confidence that they need to move into employment and into supported living. Ms Lo also said that there was lots of good practice in Northern Ireland but we must ensure that more is done. That is absolutely correct: more work needs to be carried out in these areas.”
“He noted that this applied to employment opportunities as well, and he noted the Committee's recommendations that more could be done to support employers in taking on individuals with a learning disability. The Departments need to look at how we can better support employers in taking on those with learning disabilities, what incentives we can offer them and how we can help them to do that. If we are serious about the report and its recommendations, that area needs to be developed. <BR /> <BR />My colleague, the Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Peter Weir, highlighted the recommendations relating to the Department of Education, especially with regard to better cross-departmental working. He supported the recommendations on the transition process.”
“We see so many different transport provisions, yet and all they are not utilised to their full potential. A lot of work needs to be done to address those issues. <BR /> <BR />Ms McGahan also mentioned the transition process for pupils leaving Sperrinview Special School and the frustrating experience that leaves young people with little choice for continued education. That frustration came across when we made our visits and spoke to people during the inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Mr Gerard Diver talked about the need to ensure good work experience and spoke of the barriers that employers face when offering places to young people with learning disabilities.”
“My colleague Mr Hilditch raised the issue of parents having to negotiate the benefits system when trying to help their loved ones and friends and find training opportunities that do not see them losing their benefits. That is one of the big issues. Because of the way the system works, people can lose out on their benefits if they seek to help someone else with a learning disability. <BR /> <BR />Ms McGahan highlighted the problem of transport provision for those with learning disabilities. She used the example of the Dungannon area and said that she knew, from her experience, of the transport issues facing those in rural areas. If you come from a rural area, you know exactly the problems and difficulties in the coordination of transport services in those areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another issue highlighted was the problem found by people with learning difficulties that, when it came to employment, employers shied away from employing these individuals. DEL highlighted that it had established a dedicated social clause team to engage with successful employers and ensure that there was a single point of contact supporting employers to access the supply chain. The Committee's recommendation was that DEL should lead the way in introducing work experience and employment opportunities into a social clause structure, with a view to such practices being rolled out right across all the Departments. <BR /> <BR />I turn to what Committee members brought forward in the report. It is a very detailed and lengthy report, and it is very good.”
“Throughout the evidence-gathering and many visits to schools and post-school provision, the Committee was left in no doubt about the work that goes on daily on behalf of individuals with learning disabilities. There was no escaping the fact that many parents are fighting a battle a day to get what should, by right, be provided for them. Many feel that they have to struggle, on a daily basis, for rights that are freely available to everyone else but not to them. Again, the Committee's recommendation is that DEL, DHSSPS and OFMDFM should ensure that advocacy services for those with learning disabilities are adequately resourced to ensure that there is a strong vocal presence, engaging with and challenging government on a case-by-case basis and at policy level, to ensure equal rights and access to the services.”
“It appears to be a prudent use of limited resources, especially in the context of ongoing financial constraints and challenging spending decisions for the future. <BR /> <BR />The Committee recommended that DEL undertake an assessment of the English legislative model and consider its applicability to the Northern Ireland setting. It recommended that the Department of Education and DEL should assess the potential long-term savings made by investing in support for young people with learning disabilities. <BR /> <BR />One view received in the Committee's evidence was that a commissioner for people with learning disabilities should be established.”
“At a joint briefing, Department of Education officials pointed out that a proposed increase in statementing to age 25 was such a fundamental change that it would be difficult to stand over and assess. They did not think that it was the right way to go. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly research service provided evidence of the benefits to be gained from piloting initiatives, such as internship programmes, as well as the independence to be gained from FE programmes, as this can have important social benefits for people with learning disabilities, allowing them to develop and carry on their friendships. The National Audit Office identified the savings made to the public purse in the long term when investing in support for young people with learning disabilities in the short term.”
“I think the Member makes a good point, but you can be sure of one thing: that is not the type of news that those people want. They want to point to something that is much more negative than this to say that we, up here, do not really do anything that is of benefit to the people. <BR /> <BR />In the evidence that the Committee received, some pointed to the fact that those with learning disabilities do not have the same opportunities at 19 years as others and said that Northern Ireland should adapt to support people with learning disabilities until they are 25 years. Others felt that consideration should be given to the potential for a college for 19- to 25-year-olds with learning disabilities, which would provide greater opportunities for them to develop their lifelong skills.”
“<BR /> <BR />The two main recommendations submitted to the inquiry, which the Committee considered, were to extend the age limit for state support from 19 to 25 and to create a commissioner or champion for learning disabilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Committee members focused their remarks on various aspects of the report and recommendations. Before I turn to their remarks, I will focus for a few moments on the legislation issues and the report's recommendations. From the outset of the inquiry, the Committee agreed that it would not shy away from bringing forward legislation, should that be deemed necessary, to improve post-school provision for those with learning disabilities. The Committee looked at the legislation in England and Wales and considered a range of evidence on possible legislative options, as well as commissioning research papers from the Assembly's Research and Information Service.”
“It was recognised that help is available until the age of 19, but it then drops off in many instances, leaving those vulnerable young people with no option or outlook for the future and having to remain at home with elderly parents and relatives. <BR /> <BR />In addressing those issues, this inquiry and report represent one of the best pieces of work that has been done during the term of this Assembly. It has not only shone a light on where the difficulties lie but brings forward 44 recommendations to help to address problems that have been ongoing for many years. I believe that, when the recommendations are implemented by the relevant Departments in the new mandate, they will make a significant difference to the lives of those who need it most.”
“I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, as Members have done throughout the debate, for the way in which he led the Committee through the entire process. I also thank the Committee Clerk and the staff for the enormous amount of work that they put into bringing the report together. <BR /> <BR />In taking on the inquiry, the Committee acknowledged that there were huge problems for individuals with learning difficulties and their families when they leave full-time education, where they have had long-term support. They then find that they have very little help and few options on where to go and what to do next.”
“The Bill may not be perfect, and some felt that there were missed opportunities during its progress, but there are enabling powers to deal with issues that we could not get agreement on, such as zero-hours contracts and the extension of the current qualification period for unfair dismissal. Those will be brought forward at a further stage for proper scrutiny by the Committee so that we can seek agreement on them. That is the right way forward, so that, rather than holding the Bill up, we can progress it, with enabling powers attached, so that the issues can be looked at in the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the work that has been done on the Bill and commend all who have been a part of it. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. It is good legislation for employers and employees.”
“I, too, welcome the Final Stage of the Employment Bill. I thank the Minister for getting the Bill to this stage after almost four years of it being in the system. I also thank his officials for the work that they did and for appearing before the Committee on numerous occasions, when they were asked to discuss various issues that were being scrutinised by the Committee. I also thank the Committee Clerk and the staff for the work that they did, as well as all the stakeholders who appeared before the Committee during the scrutiny of the Bill.”
“Very briefly on group three, we support amendment Nos 26 and 27 as they bring all of the schools into line with equality legislation, and yet time after time in the House, when we talk about equality, it is right on the lips of those in the parties opposite, yet whenever we come to legislate to create that equality, we have both parties putting down a petition of concern to stop that happening — to stop the House passing legislation dealing with equality. Therefore, they have a bit of questioning to do among themselves as to why they shout so much about equality and then, when the opportunity is there to provide equality, they turn around and put down a petition of concern to stop it. I say to you across the Chamber, "Shame on you today". We will support amendment Nos 26 and 27 and oppose amendment No 23.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a concern, however, and that concern needs to be addressed. I do not believe that it can be addressed by bringing forward a raft of amendments to a Bill at this late stage that have not had the proper scrutiny, and that is why we cannot support them today and will be opposing them.”
“It is fair to say that the Committee has not had the opportunity to scrutinise the matter as fully as it should, and it is much too important an issue to drive through in an Employment Bill for which no opportunity was given for us to scrutinise it in the detail required. That is why we will be opposing amendment Nos 5 to 17 and amendment No 29. They are detrimental both to employers who, by the very nature of their business, require zero-hours contracts and to those in the workforce who rely on zero-hours contracts, as they best meet their working arrangements. Let us remember that there are workers out there for whom the zero-hours contracts in place best meet their needs. Therefore, we cannot deny them the right to have zero-hours contracts, nor can we deny the employers.”
“<BR /> <BR />As legislators, we need to ensure that whatever we legislate for is not detrimental to the business world, employers or workers. On an issue such as this, it is important that there is time to fully scrutinise and assess prospective legislation to ensure that what is being legislated for will meet the needs of all those interests. There is only one way to do that, which is to take the time to consult with business people, employers and employees. That has not been done; there has been no time for that, but the Alliance Party amendment gives the flexibility to allow that to be done by the future Minister for the Economy. That is why we will support that particular amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 gives the Department the flexibility to consider provisions that are appropriate for the purpose of preventing any abuse that may arise. Given that this is subject to affirmative resolution, it gives the future Minister for the Economy the opportunity to bring forward proposals that can be debated and scrutinised in detail at Committee. It also gives us the opportunity to hear from witnesses and to open it up to a consultation exercise to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the proper fashion so that whatever is legislated for in the House meets the needs of employers and workers. It is important that, whenever work is being done on this, a balance is found that meets the needs of employers and workers.”
“I rise to speak on the second group of amendments, which deal with zero-hours contracts, and to look at amendment No 3, which inserts a new clause 16A, and amendment No 24. In relation to zero-hours workers, I want to say that we will be giving our support to amendment No 3. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the role that zero-hours workers play in the workplace, especially for businesses that, at certain times, require extra workers for a length of time to help them in busy periods. I know that, over the past few months, some concerns have been raised about abuses of the use of zero-hours contracts and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. As a result of that, a raft of amendments to the Bill have been brought forward at a very late stage, but it is far too late to bring them forward on such an important issue as this.”
“Does the Minister agree that the lack of prison officers is the reason for so many being off as a result of injuries received while on duty?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Will he advise how many officers are currently off work due to injury on duty and what support services are offered to them?”
“Absolutely. I have no difficulty with that, but I believe that, in doing something like that, we need to do it in the proper and correct context. This is not the context in which to deal with it. It is a policy issue, and taking it out of policy and putting it into legislation is not the correct context at all. Therefore, that is why we will oppose amendment Nos 18 to 22.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 to 22, which deal with the living wage, talk about the Department establishing a new body, how that body will report, the membership of that organisation, its operational considerations and its remunerations. I do not believe that that requires legislation at all. I believe that it is a policy matter and should be dealt with in that sphere. It should be dealt with as a policy issue rather than being legislated for. I think it is the wrong place for it. It is my understanding that it is a reserved matter, so we need to be careful about how we deal with the issue. We will be opposing amendment Nos 18 to 22.”
“I rise to speak to group 1. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 are technical in nature, as the Chair of the Committee has outlined. I do not intend to say any more on that matter. I have some reservations about the bureaucratic burden that amendment No 4 has the potential to place on small businesses. Rather than increasing that burden, we should be striving towards the reduction of red tape for our business sector. The CBI has also expressed its concern around that issue, especially regarding the disability sector, and we have to acknowledge that as well. We need to be careful that we do not allow gender to overcome ability and that someone with ability is not excluded simply because of their gender. With those reservations, we acknowledge the amendment that is before the House, and we are of a mind to give our support to it.”
“I, too, thank the Minister for his statement to the House. I notice, Minister, that, at the meeting, there was a presentation from the Health Research Board on Horizon 2020 funding. Will you advise what success Northern Ireland has had thus far in bidding for Horizon 2020?”
“An outright ban, as suggested by some, would have a disproportionate impact on flexibility in the economy and potentially remove some employment opportunities. Furthermore, employers could use diverse new means to obtain a measure of flexibility that circumvent any legislative response to the current situation. <BR /> <BR />Zero-hours contracts work well in some cases, although we are not turning a blind eye to the fact that there are some cases where they do not work as well as they should. That is why, as the Chair of the Committee said, we are not saying that the matter should not be amended, looked at or talked about and changed in some form or other, but banning it outright would close the door on that and have a detrimental impact on many small and medium-sized businesses across Northern Ireland.”
“There was no consensus at Second Reading, and the Minister said that he would put forward a provision to deal with it. When we look at the issue before us, we see the strong concern coming from industry, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. If we do, it will be at our peril, and we will be the losers in the long term. That is one of the reasons why we are of a mind to support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 relates to zero-hours contracts. We will not support that; we will oppose it. There has been no consultation on an outright ban on zero-hours contracts or assessment of the potential economic and equality impacts of such a ban. Even in the absence of an impact assessment, it is clear that an outright ban on such contracts would undoubtedly have significant impacts on many businesses and those whom they employ.”
“All say that it would be good to move from a one-year to a two-year period. We are, therefore, minded to support the amendment that the Member has brought to the House today.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 changes the qualifying period from one year to two years. Members will know that opinion on the matter is much divided. A lot of people feel that it is a missed opportunity, and that was stated at Second Reading. The Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Engineering Employers' Federation were among those to express disappointment, saying that they felt that the Bill was a missed opportunity to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. They argued that it would ensure Northern Ireland's competitiveness and encourage inward investment and indigenous growth, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. Opinion has been divided, but we see from the Engineering Employers' Federation and from all the folk involved in business that they are not really that divided on it.”
“In this group, I welcome amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13. Amendment No 11 deals with impartial careers guidance, and amendment Nos 12 and 13 not only deal with apprenticeships but take into account traineeships, which were not originally in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As the Committee Chair said, amendment No 10 has come as something of a surprise, in that it never appeared before the Committee, and there was no discussion about it at any time in the Committee. The Committee is where it should have come to be scrutinised and debated. However, we as a party are of a mind to support the amendment, if it is moved. I have to add that, as the Minister said, changes need to be made to it, and we would like its supporters to take the opportunity to make those changes in order to make it more amenable.”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that, should the amendments be made, they will close off the option on which a policy decision remains to be made in light of the outcome of the public consultation on the future of tribunals. I do not believe that we should be in the business of closing down the option that we have to look at those issues following the consultation process. That is why we will oppose those two amendments today, but with the assurance that the individual taking a claim is protected from multiple deposits, as that would require Assembly approval first. With that, I will conclude on this group of amendments.”
“<BR />Turning to amendment Nos 1 and 4 in the name of Mr Flanagan, Ms Bronwyn McGahan and Mr Fra McCann, let me say first of all that we will be opposing those amendments. I have heard and listened to the arguments for the purpose of those two amendments and the concerns about the implications of having more than one deposit of £500 on any single claim. However, it is fair to say that this is a potentially contentious area and that there is support for and opposition to any change of this kind. That is why the Committee pressed for this to be brought in under the affirmative resolution process, rather than being placed in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 to clause 7 is simply a technical amendment, which has already been outlined by the Minister, and is necessary to include provisions on conciliation to help employers and employees. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 to clause 9A, which replaces clauses 4 and 8, will be welcome news for many stakeholders, in particular the Tribunals Service and the Labour Relations Agency. The flexibility that that will provide will allow for the structuring of the neutral assessment service to better provide and deliver for the purpose that it was designed for. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 7 and 8 from the Committee have been laid out in detail. The Committee Chair mentioned them, and I do not intend to reiterate those points.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. Like the Chair, I thank the Minister, the Department and even the Committee staff for all the work they have done in bringing the Bill to this stage. <BR /> <BR />Very briefly, I welcome amendment No 2 to clause 5 and amendment No 5 to clause 9. Those two amendments are similar, in that they deal specifically with deposits: clause 5 dealing with industrial tribunals; and clause 9 dealing with fair employment tribunals. Those amendments will ensure that deposits will now be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure of the Assembly and that any regulations that utilise the deposits provision for either of the two tribunals will require Assembly approval before being made. I think that that cuts out any concern that there is on those issues.”
“I believe that it is good Budget and one that is worthy of support by the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />Despite all the challenges that we face and the hurdles that are sometimes put in the way, I believe that the extra £20 million that will come to the Department for the Economy in the June monitoring round is a good news story that will be welcomed by the further and higher education sectors. Mind you, I am not so sure that the SDLP will get a clap on the back for refusing to support the Budget and this extra money for the reskilling and upskilling of our people. There will also be road infrastructure programmes, one in my constituency and one in the neighbouring constituency, and, again, the SDLP appear to be denying the money for those programmes. I am not so sure that they will get a clap on the back for doing that either. <BR /> <BR />It has been clearly started that it is one-year Budget.”
“Far too often, in Committee, we hear from employers who are especially looking for electricians, plumbers and welders, yet the training experience that potential employees have received has failed to meet the criteria that those employers are after. As we move into the future within the constraints that exist, it will be more important than ever that what is funded actually meets the required needs of employers. That is the most important issue for the funding of reskilling and upskilling going forward. What is delivered must need the needs that employers have and require.”
“<BR /> <BR />Investing in our skills is also a key element of the rebuilding and rebalancing of our economy. In order to exert the best value from the devolution of corporation tax, we must ensure that Northern Ireland has within its shores a skilled and talented pool of people who are ready to take advantage of employment opportunities as they arise, whether that is within the local business sector, through indigenous business growth or through foreign direct investment. <BR /> <BR />While the Department for Employment and Learning has a number of ongoing strategies, I believe that there will be a job of work to do within the new Department for the Economy to ensure that what is funded actually provides for and meets the needs of our employers and foreign direct investors.”
“If the Member had been listening, he would have realised that we said that many challenges have to be faced, but we will face up to those and we will move on. I was glad to hear the Finance Minister in his opening remarks today announce that not only is there the commitment of £5 million in this Budget for the skills agenda but that it is his intention to make available another £20 million at the June monitoring round. <BR /> <BR />One of the areas of concern has not only been the reskilling of our people but the upskilling of our 18- to 24-year-olds. If we fail to invest in them, we will be in danger of losing them to other parts of the UK or further afield. If we want to see continual growth and stability in our economy, we must continue to invest in our youth, who are tomorrow's workforce.”
“There is no doubt that, in the past few years, just like all other sectors of society, further and higher education felt the pain of the economic recession, which not only created many challenges for them but is still having an impact on them today as they continue to deliver for their students. However, as we all know, challenges always bring new opportunities and innovative ways of delivering. <BR /> <BR />Reskilling and upskilling our people is essential to give everyone the opportunity to realise their full potential and to make a valuable contribution to society. That is one of the challenges that must be properly addressed if we want people ready for the devolution of corporation tax.”
“I am nearly there. First, I congratulate and commend my friend and colleague Mervyn Storey for taking on the role as Finance Minister and wish him well. As we come to our Budget debate today, many challenges lie ahead, not least in employment and learning, on which I want to focus my remarks today. However, while there are challenges that we must tackle, we also have an opportunity to build a solid foundation that supports economic growth, strengthens social inclusion, inspires people to achieve their aspirations and provides hope for future generations. <BR /> <BR />The establishment of the new Department for the Economy, bringing together the further and higher education sectors alongside our business community, will, I believe, play a key role in continuing to strengthen the economy and to drive it forward.”
“However, we cannot be complacent about what is a vital front-line service. I have listened to the concerns of officers about moving forward into the future, and that is why I call on my colleague the Health Minister, Mr Hamilton, to work with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service in partnership with the Ambulance Service and the broader health and care sector to ensure that enhanced emergency capability is provided where identified and where required. I also call on him to give an assurance that any proposal for efficiency savings required by the Executive will be considered only where they do not compromise public or firefighter safety across Northern Ireland.”
“The service will not be impacted on by the proposed changes. In fact, Mr Thompson believes that the proposals to match the risk levels with the appropriate resources will provide an enhanced preventative protection and emergency response while maximising the use of the resources that the service has.”
“It is based not on the budget but on the risk profile of Northern Ireland. The process was under way before anyone knew what the budget settlement was, and, as yet, my colleague the Health Minister has made no decision on the 2016-17 financial allocation to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. <BR /> <BR />Acting Chief Fire Officer, Gary Thompson, said:”
“I do not think that that is factually correct. The fact is that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has been carrying out a risk assessment on the delivery of an effective and efficient service based on the changing risk profile of Northern Ireland.”
“— that any change to service delivery must not compromise the safety of either the public or the officers who deliver the service. That is why we will give careful consideration to the outcome of the consultation on the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service's changing risk profile. <BR /> <BR />I want to deal with some issues in the motion. It says:”