Stephen Farry
North Down · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Speaking for a party that has a longer pedigree in advocating a public inquiry than both the DUP and Sinn Féin, I nonetheless welcome this announcement, despite the torturous path that we have had and, indeed, the missed opportunities.”
“The first was a reform of the petition of concern to take it back to the original intent when it was designed in 1998. It was clear at that stage that Arlene Foster banged the table and said, "No, never. We are not doing that. That is a way whereby we are going to have to fold on equal marriage: it's not happening".”
“<BR /> <BR />The main points that I make concern the substance of the order. There are probably three aspects that the Minister needs to address properly before the Assembly, and they really relate to what other options he has.”
“That raises the question of why they want to go as far as 2022, especially when I am not sure — I would welcome any clarification to the contrary on it — that there has been formal Executive approval of this.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are three major substantive issues that I do not believe have been properly aired on this: VAT; European Commission infraction proceedings; and, most important, the opportunity foregone to revisit the classification of Northern Ireland Water and the ability, through a separate water charge, to allow it to borrow commerc…”
“While my party was supportive of the Good Friday Agreement back in 1998, at that time, we expressed some reservations around the very detailed nature of the proposals and how those could, in due course, destabilise Northern Ireland and prevent us from realising our full potential. We have been very much vindicated in that analysis.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,504 lines we hold for Stephen Farry, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 51.
“However, if people refer to that amendment, they will see that, while it has enabling powers in some respects, it is also prescriptive in a range of areas. I invite Members to note the occasions on which we have duties on employers that they must do certain things and on the Department that it must do certain things — that is right across what is quite a lengthy amendment. I will give one example that appears towards the end, where it says that the Department "must" produce a strategy. That is not "may". We have had no consultation on the merits or otherwise of having a strategy, but we have a directive from the Assembly today that the Department "must" do something. Therefore, we have a massive inconsistency. The basis on which the amendments are being rejected today does not stand up to scrutiny.”
“The point I want to return to is the notion that the reason for the petition of concern and presumably the votes against today is the fact that this has not been subject to public consultation or Committee scrutiny and is a matter for OFMDFM when this is not an OFMDFM Bill. Let me be very clear about this: we have already made an amendment, only a matter of about an hour prior to this point, that passed a new duty relating to equality to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />I heard Mr Hazzard, before he left the Chamber, refer to the fact that the amendments were different because the amendment about the gender pay audit was one where we have enabling powers but the issue before us here is prescriptive.”
“In so far as we have different sectors in Northern Ireland and no matter what teacher training infrastructure we will have, there should be provision to reflect the particular requirements of the various types of school, but there should also be scope for the development of a much more integrated module that trains all teachers in the full spectrum of diversity, with top-ups available specific to particular sectors. The application of the exemption to equality legislation serves only to restrict the job opportunities of some qualified teachers compared with others in what is a very tight and competitive labour market. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I want to refer to some of the comments that were made. Like other Members, I am stunned by the arguments or the lack of arguments being put up on these very particular amendments.”
“The issue is therefore a level playing field in terms of access to the certificate, which is clearly embedded in the St Mary's University College approach to the curriculum and available to students at Ulster University, but it is only available to students at Stranmillis via distance learning from the University of Glasgow, notwithstanding the fact that there are institutions on their doorstep that could equally provide them with access.”
“Any professionally trained and educated teacher should be capable of teaching in any type of school or sector, irrespective of their personal background. Therefore, we need to separate personal background from the ethos of a school. Teachers should be able to reflect and promote the ethos of a school in which they work, irrespective of their own particular views. <BR /> <BR />The situation would be helped by more ready access for all trainee teachers to the certificate of religious education for situations where it is still retained. As others have said, it is important that we decouple the issue of the exemption to equality legislation with the potential to require the certificate, because the requirement for the certificate can be applied on a non-discriminatory basis to anyone from any background.”
“Their purpose is to repeal article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 a year after this Bill receives Royal Assent. The effect would be to remove the current exception that exists in fair employment legislation in relation to schoolteachers. I am aware that this is a matter on which there has been some discussion, albeit not in the context of the Employment Bill. The policy focus here is very much on equality in education. The Department referred to in article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order is, in fact, OFMDFM, which has the lead on equality matters. <BR /> <BR />It is my view that this exemption to equality legislation should be removed. It was not justifiable in the first place, and the arguments against it are today even stronger.”
“Criminal offences are unusual in employment law, and the Department considers that the package of measures in the 2014 regulations provides adequate protection, especially taking into account the outcome of the public consultation on the issue. <BR /> <BR />In my view, civil law is the best area in which to enforce the regulations. Other employment relations concerns are dealt with appropriately using this method, and, as I have indicated, there is recourse to criminal penalties through data protection legislation, if that is warranted. I therefore oppose the amendment and invite Members to join me in doing so. <BR /> <BR />I also want to make some comments as an individual Member, primarily on the amendments tabled by Mrs Overend and Mr Kennedy.”
“Of the six substantive responses, five agreed that enforcement should take place via civil law. Only one consultee considered that enactment of both criminal and civil sanctions would be appropriate. <BR /> <BR />The blacklisting regulations can be read alongside the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, where there are criminal sanctions. The Information Commissioner already has the powers to investigate breaches of the Data Protection Act and to undertake criminal prosecutions if necessary. If blacklisting occurs in the future, it may well be covered by an investigation by the Information Commissioner and lead to prosecutions.”
“Compensation can range from £5,700 to £76,600. Individuals, trade unions and other organisations may complain to a court that the general prohibition in the regulations has been breached, or was likely to be breached, where they have suffered a loss, or may suffer a loss, as a consequence of that breach. Where the court upholds the complaint, it may award damages to the complainant. The award of damages may include compensation for injury to the feelings of the complainant. No minima or maxima apply to the size of these awards. <BR /> <BR />During consultation on the 2014 blacklisting regulations, consultees were asked whether they supported the Department's view that enforcement should take place via civil law. Those not in agreement with that view were asked to indicate what alternative approach they favoured.”
“As well as the general prohibition against compiling, selling, supplying and using a blacklist, the regulations also make it unlawful for an employer to refuse a person employment for a reason related to a prohibited list; to dismiss an employee for a reason related to a prohibited list; and to subject a worker to any other detriment for a reason related to a prohibited list. The regulations also make it unlawful for an employment agency to refuse its service to a worker for a reason related to a prohibited list. <BR /> <BR />Individuals may enforce their rights contained in the regulations through an industrial tribunal or a court. Complaints against employers or employment agencies for refusing employment or services, for dismissal or for detriment can be made by the individual concerned to an industrial tribunal.”
“First of all, I will discharge my duty as Minister in relation to the blacklisting amendment, which relates directly to the functions of my Department. The intention is to modify article 5 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 so that regulations must make non-compliance with blacklisting regulations an offence which could, in certain circumstances, be punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. The current blacklisting regulations make it unlawful to compile, supply, sell or use a prohibited list, ie a blacklist. This core feature of the regulations is termed the general prohibition.”
“There is clearly a contradiction between those two positions.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she agree that it seems a little strange that Sinn Féin seems to be using an argument that this is an OFMDFM responsibility and should be subject to public consultation before it is willing to act, when it has already amended the Bill today on another equality matter regarding gender pay audits on which there has been no public consultation but there was clear consensus in the House that it wanted to move ahead? That, again, is an OFMDFM responsibility.”
“The current amendment is not prescriptive in content; it solely serves to provide an early opportunity in the next mandate for proportionate regulation in an area of significant public concern and discourse, and avoids any delay in waiting for the next piece of employment legislation that, in all likelihood, would only put in place the same enabling powers as proposed by the amendment today. Given the number of variables involved, the issue of zero-hours contracts is probably best addressed through regulations in any event. Those regulations would need to be agreed by the Executive and then by an affirmative vote in the Assembly. I believe that that is the most realistic way forward, and I urge the House to support the two amendments from my colleagues and to oppose all the other amendments in the group.”
“<BR /> <BR />Notably, any and all of the Sinn Féin amendments could be taken forward as part of those regulations. So the absence of support today for those amendments does not need to be the end of the consideration of those proposals, and, indeed, I would look forward to seeing at least some of those being implemented in some form in the very near future. <BR /> <BR />The amendment from my colleagues is a purely enabling amendment that provides the capacity for a Minister of the Economy to bring forward regulations. The content would be determined by that Minister and could be as broad or as narrow as deemed appropriate.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the Assembly has a will to take forward the measures in the Bill to legislate for zero-hours contracts, the preferred approach would be that of supporting the amendments from Anna Lo and Stewart Dickson, which make provision for general enabling powers, with regulation-making provisions, to allow for a proper process of policy development to be undertaken. These amendments have the benefit of providing a mechanism for zero-hours contracts to be included in the last opportunity for primary legislation during this mandate, while also providing for the outworkings of necessary consultations, impact assessments and stakeholder engagement to be taken forward in due course through regulations during the next mandate, should that be the wish of the Assembly.”
“I am more than happy to recognise that there may well be a case for supporting some of the policy intent contained in the Sinn Féin amendments. It certainly reflects some of my thinking, and I think that it reflects the thinking of other Members from a range of political parties. However, there is a danger in proceeding in a rushed way and putting in place bad or ineffective law. We do not know that the terms of these amendments will succeed in doing what they intend or whether they will be readily circumvented by some employers. As such, I recommend to my Executive colleagues that we oppose these amendments, and I recommend to the House that we oppose this approach as well.”
“Absolutely. I place on record my thanks to the Committee. No influence was brought to bear by the Department — the Committee made its own decision. However, had the Committee not been as proactive as it was, the Bill would not have been able to make its way through the legislative stages in the House to reach completion before the end of the mandate. A sterling effort was put in by the Committee staff and members to ensure that we are where we are today. As part of that process, however, we had to be realistic about what could and could not be scrutinised in the available time frame. We are in a reasonable place, where we have a Bill that is comprehensive, addresses a range of issues and sets out the promise of a lot more happening in the future. <BR /> <BR />We have a very prescriptive approach from Sinn Féin that has not been tested.”
“— to move things through that quickly. <BR /> <BR />On the back of the Executive's approval of the zero-hours contracts paper, we would have brought amendments, which would probably have been enabling amendments for regulations, to the Committee at a very early stage and allowed its wider scrutiny of the Employment Bill to encompass those. In that way, we would have brought everything together as part of the discussion. <BR /> <BR />Owing to the constrained timescale, what was done was all that was feasible in the time available. We will have a very good result today if we pass the enabling clauses around zero-hours contracts, because we will not have to come back with another piece of employment legislation in order to have a platform from which to move ahead. The new Minister will be able to move very quickly from this platform.”
“I am very happy to clarify that point, and I thank the Member for bringing it up. We had the frustration that the Employment Bill itself was caught up in the Executive system for quite a period. Had the Bill been brought forward sooner, its Committee Stage would have been much longer than the time available. <BR /> <BR />I again put on record my thanks to everyone for what they did —”
“This would alter the law of Northern Ireland. It is something that would go down in statute, and we would have to live with it on the far side. <BR /> <BR />The irony, of course, is that my paper to the Executive of February 2015 contained a number of proposals that, unfortunately, did not get the Executive's approval. Those proposals are reflected in some of the Sinn Féin amendments. It would have been my preference for those proposals to have been agreed by the Executive, and then for them to have been presented to the Committee for Employment and Learning and subjected to the detailed and appropriate scrutiny that should characterise a sound legislative process.”
“In that way, we will be able to modify things as circumstances evolve, particularly as we take into account rulings of tribunals as cases on breaches of regulations or, indeed, primary legislation occur. That is the most responsible way in which we can ensure that we protect people. If we get this wrong, we inadvertently raise expectations while putting in place a paper tiger that will not provide the outcomes that people are suggesting. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that it is good enough for people to come here today and talk about outcomes and make broad speeches about how we want to crack down on zero-hours contracts without going through the detail and explaining the rationale behind the way in which things are framed. This is not a debate on a Back-Bench motion in which we are talking in broad principles.”
“The second aspect, and perhaps one that is more pertinent to the whole process of scrutiny, is whether the amendments will achieve their stated outcomes and objectives. There is no guarantee of that, because we have not stress-tested their wording. There may be means by which employers could circumvent what is put down on paper. It is all well and good to say that we can provide more regulations to prevent that, but if we were to put things into a Bill, we could end up with one unholy mess as we tried to unpick things that prove to be ineffective. It is far cleaner for us to have a broad enabling power in the legislation and then to address the issue through regulations.”
“Another is whether that is what we should be doing to address the issue in society. Members may have their own views on that.”
“The clauses would provide for the prohibition of exclusivity clauses, detriment and unfair dismissal relating to zero-hours contracts, a limit to be set on the proportion of zero-hours contracts per employer and general interpretation provisions. <BR /> <BR />In the very limited time that I have had to consider the clauses, it appears to me that there may well be merit in a number of the proposed provisions. However, I would be concerned if any or all of the clauses were to succeed in the Bill today as there has been no consultation on the proposals, no assessment of regulatory or equality impacts and, crucially, no Committee scrutiny. There is a particular set or category of questions that we have to ask ourselves. One is whether the proposed regulation by way of primary legislation is actually appropriate.”
“The clauses include a definition of zero-hours contracts, including provision, by regulation, to amend the definition and to provide that any regulations be made under draft affirmative resolution of the Assembly. They also provide for a requirement on employers to give notice in writing of the minimum hours of a worker's employment, to treat zero-hours workers on the same basis as comparable workers engaged by the employer and to give zero-hours workers reasonable notice of work and notice of the cancellation of work. They also include the right for workers to request fixed and regular employment and a requirement on employers to offer fixed and regular employment after 12 weeks.”
“It is important — I think it is clear — that any Minister from any party would, in due course, when they had done the proper due diligence around the work, bring forward proposals in a timely manner for fresh public consultation and regulations that would then be scrutinised through the Executive and the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The 12 new clauses relating to zero-hours contracts proposed by Sinn Féin members appear to be drawn from a number of sources including the zero-hours provisions in the GB Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; existing employment rights contained in the Employment Rights Order (Northern Ireland) 1996; and the recommendations of the research undertaken by the University of Limerick on behalf of the Irish Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have heard comments from Members about the fact that it is framed with "may", it does not go far enough and there is no guarantee of action, but that is the way we frame enabling powers around regulations in legislation that we pass routinely in the Assembly. I am sure that there is acceptance — we have heard it today in comments from all quarters of the House — that we need to engage in some form of proportionate regulation. Where the difference lies is perhaps in how far-reaching it would be, not the principle or fact that there needs to be regulation.”
“That approach would allow my Department to make regulations that it considered appropriate to prevent abuses connected with zero-hours arrangements and in relation to particular contracts that could be specified in the regulations. <BR /> <BR />The amendment would establish a wide power enabling the amendment or repeal of statutory provisions so that we did not have to await the next suitable primary legislative vehicle to take the issue forward. Any regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so the Assembly would retain the full opportunity for scrutiny.”
“<BR /> <BR />Two new clauses have been tabled by my party colleagues Anna Lo and Stewart Dickson on zero-hours contracts. In doing that, they are very much seeking to find something that the House can unite around. The clauses define zero-hours and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements and provide a broad enabling power to make regulations in relation to these provisions. Apart from providing definitions, the clauses are not prescriptive about how zero-hours contracts are to be dealt with in legislation; instead, they provide for regulations to amend or repeal any statutory provision, including the definitions. They insert a new provision into the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which is an enabling framework only.”
“I fully respect and acknowledge the position that the Chair has adopted in saying that any detail in terms of prescription on zero-hours contracts needs to be subject to the Committee's scrutiny as well as further engagement with stakeholders. While reference has been made to the fact that there has been a public consultation on potential proposals that would have led to Executive agreement on that, as the Chair, the Deputy Chair and, indeed, others will fully appreciate, the consultation that has been conducted by the Department is distinct from that conducted by Committees, whereby Committees have their own call for evidence and ask people to come before them to give their views. In that way, we have almost a double lock in the testing of proposals through the departmental consultation and the Committee's call for evidence.”
“<BR /> <BR />In February 2015, I presented to the Executive a paper that sought policy approval for a series of reforms that would have been broader and further-reaching than anything else in these islands. My intention was that the necessary legislative provisions would be facilitated through the Employment Bill. Regrettably, Executive agreement was not forthcoming for me to include in the Bill provisions that would have reflected the detailed policy development work and public consultation that was undertaken by my Department. <BR /> <BR />Given that this is a new area of law, it is important that there is appropriate time and space for proper legislative scrutiny at Committee level and on the Floor of the Assembly. Timely progress on the Executive paper would have allowed the space and scope for that detailed scrutiny to take place.”
“It has always been my intention that, during this mandate, the Assembly would introduce the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts. Over the past number of years, the casualisation of the labour market has increased, including the use of zero-hours contracts. Their use may be justifiable for some employers, particularly where flexibility is important, and they may be relatively benign for some workers. However, for others, they may represent the only de facto employment option and carry many problems: uncertainty over income, irregular hours, disruption to domestic and family life and difficulties in accessing benefits. As the labour market changes, it is important that we keep up with what the appropriate regulation is.”
“It is one small suggestion, which is why legislative scrutiny is so important. The addition of the word "reasonable" provides a qualification of the "compelling business reason". At this stage, there is no qualification written against the phrase "compelling business reason" in the draft that the Member has provided. I stress that, once this is passed — if it is passed — it will go into law, and tribunals will rule on that basis. If you put in a reasonableness test, that will give some scope for cases to be taken where there are breaches of the content of that amendment. As it is currently worded, there is no qualification. It is open season for employers to define what is a "compelling business reason" without any check or balance on it.”
“The Member has not used the wording, for example, in the Great Britain small business legislation; this is entirely different wording. There is no understanding, there is no appreciation and there is no stress test to ensure that the wording put forward, going into primary legislation, will actually achieve the outcome that the Member seeks.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will the Member explain to the House how he can guarantee that the wording he has put forward for the clause will achieve the outcome he seeks? If employers are allowed to provide a compelling reason for an exclusivity clause, what is to stop virtually every employer citing one or other rationale? For example, confidentiality is only cited as a "for instance"; there is not an exhaustive list of reasons that employers can use. On that reading, employers could cite any reason as a compelling business reason, thereby negating the intent of the amendment. That is why scrutiny is so important: it helps ensure that what is put forward will actually work by achieving a proper ban on exclusivity.”
“This is why, building on what the vice-Chair of the Committee said, it is so important that we have the scrutiny, not just to ensure that what we are doing is balancing employers versus employees, but to ensure that this will actually work and deliver what people want to see happening.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. This is an entirely serious point, and I appreciate that the Member may yet come to it in his own remarks. In order to get support for the amendments he is proposing, he needs to satisfy Members that the amendments would actually do what is set out and that they are going to work and deliver, amongst other factors. Simply stating that, "If we pass these things today, we will clamp down on zero-hours contracts", is not guaranteed in some ways, because in no way have they been stress tested. <BR /> <BR />There are issues around the definition of zero-hours contracts, whereby employers can very easily circumvent them. We could end up in a situation whereby we pass something which locks something into law which may not be effective in delivering what the Member intends.”
“I hate to intrude across debates, but the Member will be aware that his party colleagues have brought forward an amendment to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill later around banning smoking in cars in which there are children under 18 that is phrased around these lines — "The Minister may bring forward regulations" — so amendments from his own party in other legislation use the exact same formulation.”
“For that reason, I am opposing the amendments. I look forward to discussing and responding to the debates on the other groupings.”
“I am certainly not voting against a living wage, and I am sure that I speak for everyone else who expresses caution on the issue. We are discussing five amendments around an agency, and it is important that we take proper time to reflect on that and take the views of stakeholders and think through how this will work and whether it will make a difference.”
“<BR /> <BR />We can take a stand on the living wage if people want to do that, but we have to think carefully through the implications of putting an agency into law at this stage without any engagement with stakeholders and without ensuring that what will be put forward will make a difference and will not be counterproductive. No one has assured me on any of those points whatsoever. There will be other opportunities to legislate, if legislation is required, to take that forward, but I do not believe that it would be right for the Assembly to move ahead today on the basis of what is before us. We will need to separate the proposals from the issue. The two are not the same. Anyone who votes against the amendments today is not voting against a living wage.”
“I have no doubt that tonight, when we discuss the fair employment exemption for teacher training, we will hear an argument from the Member's Benches about the fact that we need more time for proper consideration of those issues, that there has been no public consultation around the matters and that the Assembly should not jump ahead on the basis of an amendment tabled at Further Consideration Stage. I have not seen the speeches, but I imagine that that is what they will say. I have to say that you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you cannot rule things out because you want more time to think about it and then come to the Assembly with three days' notice, saying, "Here is a raft of amendments around a living wage agency, and let us pass them because we want to take a stand on the living wage".”
“I was going to say that I note and compliment the enthusiasm of the Members in tabling the amendments, but, in doing that, we need to be clear what the amendments would do. If the intent behind them is to make a statement of the value that the Assembly places on the living wage being paid in Northern Ireland, there is a range of ways in which we can do that. We do not need to pass specific amendments into law to achieve that outcome. It is entirely conceivable that a body could be established by a future Minister. Whether that needs legislation remains to be seen, but it is an initiative that may well be taken in the future. <BR /> <BR />It is important that we have proper engagement with stakeholders when we move ahead with these issues.”
“At this point in time, we have no assessment of the potential benefits, anticipated costs or the relative views from stakeholders on these matters. There is also the issue of how we will reconcile what any agency in Northern Ireland does with what is happening in the UK as a whole and the tensions that may arise between the perspectives that come from the bodies in different jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that it is reasonable to commit my Department or its successor to establishing and paying for a body that, materially, may make absolutely no difference, however persuasive its recommendations may be, to the living standards of people in Northern Ireland. However, it is important that we do not let go of this issue entirely.”
“I am not sure that there would be widespread agreement on what that standard might look like. To be clear, the clauses may well have a laudable goal, but there was no notice of the amendments until three working days before this stage of the Bill. That being the case, there has been no opportunity for any scrutiny, let alone any public consultation or engagement with stakeholders, in relation to the amendments. Similarly, there has been no regulatory impact assessment. The formal responsibilities in this area lie with the UK Parliament under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Assembly should take into consideration the value or otherwise of putting measures in place in Northern Ireland that would only be advisory. The limitation on what it could do needs to be set against the costs involved.”
“<BR /> <BR />The spirit of the clauses appears to be to deliver improved living standards by advocating a wage that, in the words of clause 16B(2), relates to,”
“I want to make it clear that this is a debate not on the concept or the rights and wrongs of the creation of a living wage but on the creation of a living wage agency in Northern Ireland and its potential roles and functions. It is envisaged that the body would report annually on an hourly rate that is to be deemed a living wage; identify barriers to paying it; make recommendations to address those; set targets to reduce the proportion of people who are paid less than the living wage; and monitor progress in achieving those. Provision is also made for the composition, staffing and funding of the proposed agency. It is notable that the agency's financing is to be determined without reference to the Finance Minister or that Department.”
“Anna Lo spoke for our party, and, speaking personally, I can say that we recognise that it is appropriate to put in place those measures to address the differentials. It is also important to recognise the wider context and the policy levers that exist in government, where we look to a range of policies and practices that support participation, retention and progression in the workforce. There is also a powerful economic argument for ensuring that that is the case. If we want to make sure that we fully compete in the global marketplace, we have to make full use of local talents and ensure that everyone's abilities are developed to the full. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 to 22 — five new clauses — tabled by Mr Flanagan, Ms McGahan and Mr McCann would establish a living wage agency:”
“That was reflected in comments by Members. However, that in itself does not negate the Assembly proceeding with the amendment today, although it may limit its effectiveness. Again, those issues could be explored further through regulations. <BR /> <BR />I said at Consideration Stage and reiterate today that, as Minister for Employment and Learning, I cannot take a formal view on the amendments. However, I am personally sympathetic to their intent, and I expect that Members will be in agreement that we want to see the elimination of gender pay differentials. However, it is for Members to decide on whether they believe that the amendments would achieve the objective in the right way.”