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 14 of 51.
“The new Northern Ireland apprenticeship strategy, Securing our Success, was published in June 2014, and the new youth training strategy, Generating our Success, was published in June 2015. Together, those strategies set out an ambitious programme of reform that has the potential to radically transform how professional and technical training is delivered. <BR /> <BR />My aim is to establish a world-class skills system that supports and meets the ambitions of our young people and provides Northern Ireland with a skills base capable of driving economic growth. Consistent with the best systems internationally, employers will be firmly in the lead of the reformed system.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also draw the attention of the House to a possible flaw in the definition of "zero hours contracts" in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 — from which the definition in the amendment is drawn — whereby a contract will come within the definition, and therefore the protections of legislation, only if a worker is obliged to accept work when it is made available. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that those are important matters, and I look forward to hearing the views of Members on the amendments in the group.”
“There is therefore a prospect that an outright ban could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. My understanding is that the thousands of bank nurses contracted to the health trusts in Northern Ireland could be construed as being on zero-hours contracts. There are 10,000 names on the Northern Ireland Substitute Teacher Register (NISTR) who can also be regarded as being on zero-hours contracts, together with those on a number of such contracts in the further and higher education system. Therefore, the import of an outright ban on zero-hours contracts, if that were to be adopted, would be to create chaos in the health and education systems.”
“The amendment lacks the kind of proportionate approach that I originally wanted to pursue. <BR /> <BR />Any realistic opportunity for considering that important issue during the present mandate has now gone. There needs to be time for the proper scrutiny of any measures around zero-hours contracts to ensure that they will do what they are designed to do; namely, to prevent unforeseen consequences, build consensus and secure buy-in from stakeholders. That is something that regrettably we do not yet have, or have the time to accomplish. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, some immediate risks could arise from an outright ban. Once any measure became law, employers would be faced with changing the nature of employment contracts, and that may not be feasible in every situation, particularly where flexibility is at a premium.”
“I regret that no agreement was reached at the Executive on the issue. It is for others to explain why that was the case. <BR /> <BR />What is proposed today in amendment No 15 is an outright ban on zero-hours contracts. There has been no public consultation on an outright ban. The Committee for Employment and Learning has not yet had the opportunity to have detailed consideration and scrutiny of the issues. There has been no assessment of the potential impacts on business or on opportunities for employment. Even without a detailed assessment, however, it is clear that an outright ban would significantly impact on our economy, affecting many businesses and those whom they employ. At the same time as addressing abuse, it would eliminate what currently works for employer and employee.”
“In the proposals that I originally had in mind, I wanted to see an approach developed that would support the responsible use and regulation of contracts of that kind and that could tackle the abuse of such arrangements without eliminating reasonable flexibility and choice. My Department consulted on proposals around zero-hours contracts in 2014 and put to the Executive in February 2015 a paper proposing a range of progressive measures to regulate the use of contracts of that kind. <BR /> <BR />The proposed reforms were more radical than the recent measures in Great Britain. They went well beyond simply banning exclusivity clauses, which affect only a small minority of those on zero-hours contracts, with the potential also for the creation of a statutory code and rights to request a regular employment contract after a prescribed period.”
“It is a complex issue, to which a nuanced approach is necessary. We are seeing increased casualisation in the labour market in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions. Zero-hours contracts are one example of that increased casualisation. They may work for some businesses in which flexibility is important. For some workers, they also may be beneficial, and that has been demonstrated through various surveys. For others, they are regarded as being exploitative, where there is uncertainty over pay and hours and potential impacts on family life and benefits, such as accessing mortgages. <BR /> <BR />There is a strong case that our employment law should keep up with employment practice. Therefore, there should be proportionate regulation.”
“The Assembly may well wish to return to the issue in the future; indeed, a future Minister for the Economy may wish to move in that respect and table regulations to the Committee and the Assembly and see what happens in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I come to amendment No 15. By way of the amendment, Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms McGahan propose the adoption of new clause 18A, which would prohibit the use of zero-hours contracts, as defined in that clause. I explained at Second Stage that I support reform of zero-hours contracts. However, I cannot support this clause.”
“<BR /> <BR />I stress that, given the degree of sensitivity around the issue, we should approach it with the ambition of at least trying to get consensus in the Assembly. It may well be that, as we look to employment relations and employment law issues as a package, we will sometimes see that it makes sense to liberalise something in one direction at the same time as we look to put in place other protections elsewhere. That is perhaps a scenario down the line, and we could see some of these issues moving ahead in that way. I stress that the evidence is not yet established on this. However, I certainly retain an open mind, and I hope others will do so as well.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to make it clear that we propose to move from the current situation where it is done through a confirmatory procedure to the use of the affirmative procedure. That provides safeguards because, as the situation presently exists, any Minister could take a decision that might ultimately not be agreed to by the Assembly but would nevertheless remain in place for a short time until the Assembly voted on the issue. That would, at the very best, create confusion and, at the very worst, create chaos in employment law. That is why we are tightening it up and making it the affirmative procedure. Under both the confirmatory and affirmative procedures, there has to be a positive vote in the Assembly. In that context, the situation does not change in any respect.”
“The point that the Member makes applies as much to what is happening today in that the Assembly could very easily table a petition of concern against Mr McCrea's amendment. That situation has not arisen today, for whatever reason. Members will know that I set a very high bar for when petitions of concern should be used, but that could well have happened in relation to Mr McCrea's amendment. We will have a democratic vote on that and perhaps a democratic vote in the context of a future Minister making a recommendation through draft resolutions to change the qualifying period. I do not think that we are any better or worse off through not having the amendment agreed today than we would be if we left it to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
“We are about to come to that. It is by confirmatory procedure, moving to affirmative procedure. Clause 21 modifies the procedure for making such secondary legislation in that it ensures that no change can be made without the prior approval of the Assembly.”
“Looking at our competitive position internationally, I would say that the qualifying period for collective redundancies where more than 100 redundancies are being made is probably a bigger issue in how we stand out compared with international practice. That includes both our neighbours, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Picking up on what Mr Ross said and more generally, I want to stress that, as I said at Second Stage, rejecting change now does not rule it out for the foreseeable future. If there is clear evidence and a degree of consensus to support it — there is not at present — a change to the qualifying period can be made through secondary legislation. I will retain an open mind on that issue and encourage other Members to do so.”
“I thank the Member for his comments. Maybe that is slightly jumping ahead of some of the things I was going to say. First of all, with regard to my inward investment efforts, I have not really received much representation about employment law issues. It is, however, something that is cited by employer organisations as part of their concern at this time. It is fair to say, however, that the evidence base is not yet established. I will move on, but I will just say that the issue does not die today, so we are not in the situation where we have to take a decision on it either way at this moment in time.”
“In the absence of clear evidence and support for a move away from the present position at this time, I cannot support the new clause.”
“As I indicated at Second Stage, my Department has consulted extensively on the matter, and I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to support what would be a very significant change to our system of employment protections. I appreciate that there are strong views in favour of changing the unfair dismissal qualifying period. However, there are also strong views opposing change. Without wanting to oversimplify the matter, employer organisations have tended to support a change, while employee representatives have opposed it. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that there is no political consensus on the issue. Unfair dismissal is a very serious matter. It can affect an individual's livelihood, future job prospects, physical and mental health and sense of self-worth.”
“It is something that is very much in the hands of the Assembly. However, I am personally sympathetic to the intent of the amendment. Perhaps, given some of the potential pitfalls that I have raised so far, I suggest that the proposers may wish to opt not to move the amendment today and to table a revised version at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment number 14. The new clause 18A that Mr McCrea is proposing through the amendment would increase from one to two years the period for which an individual must be employed before having the right to make a claim to an industrial tribunal of unfair dismissal.”
“Given the clear differential between male and female weekly earnings, I consider that the purpose behind the amendment is a positive one. However, it has not been raised with my Department throughout the preparations for the Bill, it was not raised at Committee Stage and no preparatory policy considerations have been undertaken, consultations carried out or impact assessments conducted. It is also not something on which the Executive have agreed a position or that we should approach in a rushed or ad hoc manner. <BR /> <BR />I think that Members will be in agreement that we want to see the elimination of gender pay differentials. I do not believe that is in dispute. As a Department, that is not our current responsibility, so as Minister for Employment and Learning, I cannot take a formal view on the matter in that regard.”
“<BR /> <BR />An Equality Commission code of practice published in 2013 provides practical guidance for employers on how to promote equality of opportunity and avoid sex discrimination in pay structures. The code does not itself impose legal obligations, but it gives general guidance to employers regarding their legal obligations under the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The code is, however, admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Act. <BR /> <BR />An OFMDFM statistics and research branch publication entitled 'Gender Equality Statistics 2015 Update' contains statistics on pay and earnings that show that in 2014 the average median full-time gross weekly earnings for a male were £460·50 compared with £444·40 for a female.”
“In Northern Ireland, gender discrimination on the basis of pay is prohibited by EU law and by two separate but related domestic statutes: the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The former applies to contractual pay, and the latter covers non-contractual issues, such as recruitment, training, promotion, dismissal and the allocation of benefits. There is no legal requirement in either piece of legislation for employers to publish information about the pay of their employees. Engagement with OFMDFM officials suggests that they are not aware of any recent discussion on the issue, nor are there any recent proposals to introduce such a requirement.”
“It also creates specific timelines for the introduction of regulations, which may prove to be unrealistic, especially with elections coming up, the creation of a new Department and the need for the Department to do the necessary policy work and consultation from a standing start.”
“The amendment essentially replicates section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, which applies in Great Britain only, albeit the relevant regulations have not yet been enacted. The Department with lead policy responsibility for gender pay is the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. From May, the responsibility will pass to the new Department for Communities. At no point does the proposed clause 16A define "Department" which, in accordance with clause 25, must, therefore, be read as a reference to the Department for Employment and Learning and in future, therefore, the Department for the Economy.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now say a few words about a number of proposed amendments that have been tabled by Members, and which deal with matters that are not currently provided for in the Bill. Amendment No 10 has been tabled by Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms McGahan. The amendment introduces clause 16A, which requires my Department to make regulations obliging employers to publish information dealing with gender pay imbalances. Where such imbalances exist, the clause requires employers to publish an action plan to eliminate them. The clause also requires my Department to publish an action plan on eliminating gender pay differentials. That is the essence of the clause. <BR /> <BR />That is an important policy area.”
“For example, it does not apply if the disclosure is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation, or in a way that means that no one to whom the information relates can be identified. Article 90B(4) of the order makes a breach of the prohibition a criminal offence, punishable by a fine. Article 90B(5) provides that the prosecution of such an offence requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. <BR /> <BR />Following discussions with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Department has determined that a minor amendment to the wording is necessary to provide the PPS with increased flexibility in taking cases of this kind forward. The change will allow the director or a member of staff, on the director's behalf, to institute proceedings. That is consistent with the approach taken by the PPS to a range of issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />Since the Bill was introduced, there has been a realisation that, if amounts are revised by an order of this kind, there may be no need to make a further order that is linked to the RPI for that year. Amendment No 16 resolves that issue by providing that there is no need to make an RPI-linked order under article 33(2) where an order is made under the new article 33(7). <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 affects clause 20. Again, allow me to provide some background. Clause 20 introduces a new article 90B into the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, prohibiting the disclosure of information relating to a worker, employer or trade union that the Labour Relations Agency holds in connection with performing its duties. Article 90B(2) specifies the circumstances in which the prohibition does not apply.”
“Clause 19 also modifies the rounding calculation set out in article 33(3) of the 1999 Order so that changes in amounts are rounded up or down to the nearest pound. That ensures that they more accurately track the rate of inflation as measured by the RPI. Finally, clause 19 introduces a new paragraph into article 33 — article 33(7) — specifying that my Department may at any time make an order increasing or decreasing sums dealt with under article 33 without reference to the RPI. That will give the Department flexibility to review rates in a more fundamental way but with the safeguard that any order of that kind has to be laid in draft before, and approved by, the Assembly before becoming operational.”
“Article 33 of the 1999 Order requires my Department to make an order updating the maximum amounts of certain awards of industrial tribunals and other amounts payable under employment legislation for each year in which there have been changes to the retail prices index (RPI) between one September and the next. The amounts that must be updated include the maximum compensatory award for a finding of unfair dismissal and the weekly rate used for calculating statutory redundancy payments. Clause 19, as drafted, amends article 33(2) of the 1999 Order so that future changes to the relevant limits are to be made on 6 April each year, rather than, as is the current arrangement, "as soon as practicable". That provides greater certainty about when changes will be applied.”
“Components are the various elements that need to be in place for a particular training programme to be recognised as an apprenticeship or traineeship. The components will ensure that there are clearly defined requirements with respect to apprenticeships and traineeships and will ensure a high-quality offer and consistency across different occupational areas. <BR /> <BR />I now want to draw Members' attention to amendment No 16, which affects clause 19. Clause 19, as introduced, amends article 33 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. As this is a somewhat technical issue, some context will be helpful.”
“A completed traineeship will provide an individual with a qualification equivalent to five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. The purpose of including a reference to apprenticeships and traineeships in the clause is to recognise that, while complementary parts of the new professional and technical training system, they are different offerings. Traineeships will be available in professional and technical occupations at skills level two. Apprenticeships will be available in professional and technical occupations from skills level three to skills level eight. <BR /> <BR />If amendment No 13 is agreed in addition to amendment No 12, the clause will also specify that regulations may make provision about the components of apprenticeships or traineeships.”
“That is to enable the Department to deal in more detail with the provision of careers guidance, including the means of delivery and the qualifications of the persons developing or delivering it The clause commits the Department to taking action and extends flexibility to flesh out requirements in regulations, where appropriate. The Committee’s proposal will help to strengthen clause 17, and I hope that Members will support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I also propose to amend clause 18, which deals with apprenticeships, to include provision in relation to traineeships. That is the purpose of amendment Nos 12 and 13. Traineeships will be the new professional and technical training offer for 16- to 24-year-olds, as articulated in the recently published youth training strategy, ‘Generating our Success’.”
“Having given the issue some thought, I am proposing a revision that meets the Committee’s understandable desire to see action taken in that important area. The amended clause will require the Department to make arrangements to provide careers guidance for such persons as it considers appropriate. Such guidance must be provided in an impartial manner and be in the best interests of the person receiving it. <BR /> <BR />The new obligations on the Department do not require regulations to be introduced. The Department must simply comply with the requirements. However, the revised clause will still contain a regulation-making power.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment No 11, which relates to clause 17, I acknowledge at the outset the context of the Committee’s inquiry into careers policy and practice and its desire for a statutory duty in relation to the provision of advice. As introduced, clause 17 enables my Department to make regulations concerning the impartial provision, by suitably qualified persons, of careers guidance that is identified as being in the best interests of those receiving it. I have been asked by the Employment and Learning Committee to strengthen the clause by bringing forward an amendment that converts the enabling power to make regulations concerning careers guidance into a duty on the Department to do so.”
“Having reviewed the legal advice and engaged with the Secretary of State on the issue, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to bring forward this amendment so that, where a report relates to the functions of a body in the reserved field, it will be sent to the Secretary of State for laying before Parliament, rather than to the Department for laying before the Assembly. I ask Members to support that amendment to take account of the fact that certain arrangements remain outside the remit of the House. Without it, my Department will be unable to develop regulations that apply to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or any other body that is in a similar situation with regard to accountability to the devolved institutions.”
“I will deal first with amendment No 9, which is to clause 14. Clause 14 as introduced establishes regulation-making powers that require a prescribed person for the purposes of article 67F of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to produce an annual report on disclosures. During consultation on that issue, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is a prescribed person for the purpose of matters that engage human rights, was supportive of the policy proposal but was concerned that a requirement for it to report to the Assembly could be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly.”
“I stress again that we are not moving away from neutral assessment. It has to be very much part of the spectrum of the different interventions that are available. We are simply moving from neutral assessment being telegraphed as something that the LRA would offer to a situation, with the amendments tabled today, whereby neutral assessment is there but we have a process to determine in which of the different types of bodies that are involved in employment relations it best sits. That could be the LRA. Equally, it could be the Tribunals Service, which is already piloting such an intervention, or a set of third parties. <BR /> <BR />I think that that covers most of the comments that were made at this stage. We look forward to moving to the second group in due course.”
“For companies, it can be a diversion of staff and other resources. For those taking cases, it can be a very difficult process as well. It can be a financially risky process, particularly if people feel obliged to spend some of their own resource on getting legal assistance. Therefore, it is in people's interests that we try to find that balance and try to invest as much as we can in alternative dispute resolution. I again urge the House to reject the amendments from Mr Flanagan and his colleagues, not because we necessarily disagree with where they are going but because they are not necessary at this stage and because, after the full process is done, the Assembly will still have exactly the same ability to influence an outcome. <BR /> <BR />Comments were also made on neutral assessment, first by the Chair and also by Mr Diver.”
“That process, in all probability, will suggest that we do not have multiple deposits, but it is important that we listen to the stakeholders in our wider society and ensure that we find the right overall balance in how we address these issues. I stress that they are all about having a proper equilibrium between how we address the interests of employers and the interests of employees within a system. <BR /> <BR />We are doing all that we can, and we have avoided many of the changes in Great Britain. One of the pluses of having devolution in Northern Ireland is that we avoid many of the things that have impacted on the rights of individual workers that we have seen elsewhere. At the same time, we have to recognise that the process of tribunals can be very lengthy and very stressful.”
“What is proposed today is actually curtailing people's rights and opportunities to have scrutiny of this issue. With a switch from negative to affirmative resolution, and indeed Mr Flanagan was to the forefront of this, the Committee has been very keen to ensure that the safeguard is in place that any decision will have to have the full approval of the Assembly, rather than adoption of the negative procedure as was the original draft of how we approach these things. <BR /> <BR />With that, there are full safeguards for the Assembly. Nothing is lost from the rights of the Assembly if it waits until the policy is fully evolved and full scrutiny has occurred. Frankly, to move ahead today with the amendments from Mr Flanagan and his colleagues would cut off any discussion of that process.”
“<BR /> If you move to something having to be done by affirmative resolution, there is a risk because, when you are looking for active approval of the Assembly, a petition of concern could block a proposal from a Minister. However, that is a reflection of where we are in the Assembly. People want to change that in some ways, but that is the reality of the need to build a consensus around issues where people feel that there are potential breaches of people's particular interests. <BR /> <BR />That said, moving now to put in the Bill the outcome around multiple deposits is prejudicing the policy process that we are still undertaking. That process has not really been given full Committee scrutiny. In some ways, Mr Flanagan was implying that this was the sounder way of going about it.”
“It has been the practice to handle multiple deposits through regulation. There is always a tension between what goes into a Bill and what is addressed through regulations. It is important for Members to bear in mind the distinction between a Bill, which is there for quite a long period — opportunities to amend primary legislation are fairly infrequent — and regulations, which can be changed more frequently. That is a factor in determining the level of detail that should go into a Bill. Issues to do with deposits have traditionally been viewed as suitable for regulations. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, and this touches on the comments made by Mr McCrea, if you move from handling something through negative to affirmative resolution, that changes the balance and how it moves through the House.”
“What we are trying to do is to find a system of employment relations for Northern Ireland that works in the interests of employers and employees more efficiently and effectively. Going to a tribunal, as is people's right and will always be their right, is the end point of the spectrum of interventions. It is in everyone's interest to address disputes further back along the spectrum, starting with prevention, which is about good practice in the workplace. Where disputes arise, you want to address them as much as possible through the different alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and that is what we are trying to put forward in the Bill. That is the ethos behind the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There has been a lot of discussion, therefore, of the issue of multiple deposits and the shift.”
“Of course, there are other issues that the interest groups want to be considered, and over which there are major differences of opinion, that are not in the Bill. Members are very much aware of them, and perhaps we will touch on some of them when debating the second group of amendments later. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate Mr Flanagan's comments on how the Bill has been taken forward. He acknowledged that the Department and I did not at any stage consider the introduction of fees for access to tribunals. I take issue, however, with his premise that, in some way, there is an agenda to compromise the rights of workers or that we are walking along a very fine edge. That is not my agenda.”
“I thank him for recognising the approach that we are taking to multiple deposits, which, it is probably fair to say, was the main issue of discussion in the House this morning in relation to this set of amendments. <BR /> <BR />The Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Buchanan, set the context very well when he spoke about the balance to be struck between the different perspectives on the benefits or otherwise of multiple deposits. It is worth stressing at this point that the Bill is supported by employers and employee organisations, that is, trades unions. They approach the issue from different perspectives, but there is a common understanding that the Bill works on everyone's behalf. This is not zero-sum politics, where a win for one side is a loss for the other.”
“Today, we have issues on which it is possible to build a consensus across the House, and it is in that spirit that we should consider the amendments. In particular, the Committee has approached the Bill in a very pragmatic manner. There are issues for another day, and we will come back to them in due course. <BR /> <BR />I recognise the Chair and the Committee's understanding of the potential problem with confidentiality in proposed new clause 9C(3)(c). No doubt we will address that fully at Further Consideration Stage when we tidy everything up. I think that there is a mutual recognition that it is something that we need to address.”
“In light of the constructive way that most Members approached the debate on this group of amendments, I will try to be relatively brief. I thank the Chair, members and staff of the Committee for the speedy and efficient way that they addressed the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Chair referred to several records that have been made. The Committee will no doubt be very much aware of those not only in the context of this Assembly but in the context of other legislatures around the world and how quickly it has dealt with the Bill. That was done without accelerated passage. <BR /> <BR />In reference to what Mr McCrea said, I would not suggest for one moment that we have rushed the Bill. The review of employment law started in 2012, and there has been a lot of discussion about issues in and outside the Bill in many fora.”
“<BR /> <BR />On a more technical point, if, as I hope, Members are positively disposed to new clause 9A on neutral assessment and the exclusion from the Bill of clauses 4 and 8, there will be a need to look again at proposed clause 9C to reflect that position. In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the views of Members on the amendments in the group.”
“It is important that early conciliation is not compromised by a reporting requirement that touches on individual cases. <BR /> <BR />A similar issue arises in relation to neutral assessment. Although the regulations establishing that service have yet to be developed, there is a real possibility that confidentiality could be an important consideration. A reporting requirement that does not touch on individual cases but seeks aggregated information on cases would deal with this concern. I understand the Employment and Learning Committee’s rationale for tabling the amendments, and I know that the Committee has been made aware of the issue. I look forward to hearing the Chair’s remarks on the matter.”
“While my Department, the Labour Relations Agency and the tribunal service consider the effectiveness of their work on an ongoing basis, I have no difficulty in general with the requirements. However, I have a concern about aspects of the proposed wording of subsection 3(c) in each clause. As the draft stands, the Department would be required, among other things, to report on the time taken for each case and the outcome of each case. Those requirements seem reasonable at first glance, but the phrasing is important. An analysis or report that touches on information about each individual case has implications for confidentiality. The LRA is under a legal duty to maintain confidentiality in delivering its services. Indeed, that duty is expanded on by clause 20.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment Nos 7 and 8, tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Amendment No 7, which is new clause 9B, requires my Department to review the entirety of the Labour Relations Agency's conciliation service at the end of one year and again after three years following commencement of the early conciliation provisions of the Bill. It also requires the Department, having consulted relevant stakeholders, to lay a report before the Assembly setting out the findings of the review. Amendment No 8, which is new clause 9C, establishes the same requirements in relation to neutral assessment. <BR /> <BR />I am content with the objective of the proposed review clauses.”
“The procedures were repealed by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. This is simply a tidying amendment to remove statutory references to procedures that no longer apply, and I hope that Members will support it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are related. They apply to schedule 3, which sets out repeals. Amendment No 18 removes references from the Fair Employment and Treatment Order that relate to statutory dispute resolution procedures that were repealed by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Amendment No 19 repeals provisions of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 that relate to the same procedures. They are also tidying amendments, reflecting the fact that the statutory dispute resolution procedures in question have ceased to have effect.”