Basil McCrea
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I carried on that work on the all-party group on science and technology, and, when I am gone from this place, I hope that those who are still here will take up the challenge of science and technology, because that is where the jobs are and that is where the future is.”
“I rise for the last time to address the Assembly. I thank the people of Lagan Valley for the privilege of representing them over the past nine years. It seems like only yesterday that I first got here, awestruck by the names on the doors of people that I had seen only on television, and, yet, here we are.”
“— what matters is to have the courage to go on. I will go on. I will leave this place with my head high, with my colours flying, with my dignity intact and with all conviction about what is good for Northern Ireland. In conclusion, two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the road less travelled. That has made all the difference.”
“Despite the heckling from the man in front of me, I shall ask a question of the Minister in two parts. First, would the Minister care to tell us what was his personal favourite of the many events at the Northern Ireland Science Festival?”
“I am grateful to the Member for the explanation, and I have no doubt that her efforts to draft the amendment were well-intentioned. Maybe she can help me on this, if it has come up in the discussions.”
“Actually, when I read it, I understood it to be the other way round. However, I am happy that it is a more general stance and is not limited to single acts. <BR /> <BR />As regards amendment No 2, I approached the concept in a sympathetic manner, but I am not convinced that we can properly define an imbalance of power.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Basil McCrea, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 15.
“Those have been commented on. His central argument is:”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. We have had an interesting debate on the legality, and the thrust of the Member's argument, as I understand it, is that the amendment would open the door for foetuses with disabilities and that they would be denied their legal protection. I ask him to comment on section 160 of Justice Horner's judgement, where he stated:”
“Will we not trust doctors to diagnose a fatal foetal abnormality? Does he want to add to his list of things that are fatal foetal abnormalities? In addition to anencephaly, you can have renal agenesis, neural tube defects, the brain open right through to the meningeal sac or caudal regression. There is a list of medical conditions that doctors are able to diagnose. If they diagnose a fatal foetal abnormality, that is a medical decision and not something to do with cleft palates or any other argument.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. On the point — it seems to be at the centre of an argument — about fatal foetal abnormalities, Justice Horner had this to say:”
“I realise that it is a personal choice that the Member has expressed about how far he could go with the amendment. Has he considered the High Court's recent announcement on the case of Sarah Ewart, which talks not just about fatal foetal abnormalities but of the victims of sexual crimes and how, in the judge's opinion, we are inconsistent with European law?”
“But if you really want to know what I think would be good for Northern Ireland on this issue — from a non-partisan position — it is that we could agree to do everything possible to create jobs for our people. Jobs are what it is all about. It is about the economy, stupid. And on that, I will sit down.”
“Rogue politicians? <BR /> <BR />This is a procedural thing. I think that we should be having this debate, and I am not trying to tell anybody here that they are wrong. I understand that there are heartfelt feelings on all sides and that people want to see what is best for their constituents. That includes looking after the employers that will employ them. Those are things that we have to deal with. But what I really think is good, even though it has been a bit fractious in this debate, is that at least we have got it out in the open. At least the amendment was put, and we put our position and had our chat, and we can stand on it when it comes to the next election. This is what I believe.”
“So, when I come to a conclusion on this, I realise that the style of debate that I have had and the challenge that I put out to people does not engender them to go, "Ah what a good fella. Let's go and vote for his amendment after all — you know, it's not so bad". I get all of that. But sometimes you just have to take a stand and say, "You are trying to push this through without considering the full effects". <BR /> <BR />I do not know if you are part of it or whatever, but I say to you, Minister, that I saw immediately what the procedural moves were about in moving to affirmative action on this. In my opinion, it was not that you might worry about some rogue Minister — heaven forbid we would have rogue Ministers in this place and we would have to go and stop it. I mean, if we had rogue Ministers or rogue employers, where would it all end?”
“Of course there are abuses and issues, and I am interested to hear more about what the Minister has to say on the matter, but I want it to be evidence-based. When you do not address agency working at all in an employment Bill, there is a huge chasm in the arguments being put forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />I put the challenge to those parties that are going to reject my amendment. When you look to those in your constituency, they will ask you whether you do not support those who are trying to create wealth. Are you saying that no members of the FSB are good employers? I heard a lot a lot of talk about Michelin, the tobacco factory and all those people. Are you saying that there are no responsible and reputable employers? I see that most people are trying to do a good thing because it is in their interests to do so. <BR /> <BR />When you come back to the numbers and to the evidence, the number of people who may be on zero-hours contracts is somewhere between 1·2% and 4%. I would like to know what that figure is before I pass any legislation. I am not saying that I am opposed to zero-hours contracts that are properly regulated.”
“They told me that they prefer to hire them as agency workers for a couple of years and, if they are OK, they then take them on. That is the point I am making. You cannot look at that one issue in isolation. If you want employment law that encourages employment but also looks after the rights of individuals, you have to look at it as a whole. <BR /> <BR />I sometimes get a little frustrated when I make these arguments. I get the feeling that people adopt a position that is based on ideological thought processes rather than a rational, logical evidence-based process. All the evidence from those who employ suggests that, if you do the right thing by giving employers some encouragement to take on employees, they will do so. Northern Ireland needs to do that because our employment performance is not good enough.”
“Occasionally, those things do not work. <BR /> <BR />I will tell you this straight off: when I was the Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee, there was an initiative from the Department to try to encourage people to take on workers and to go through a scheme. I went to a very respected organisation in my constituency and said, "Listen. I am really interested in this. I would like you to take people on". You can tell me that it does not happen in your constituency, but they told me that they were also interested but the problem was that, when they take on people who are forced to them on a scheme, they do not really want to work and that the first thing that happens is that they cut their hands on saws or something like that and put in a claim.”
“Mr Diver said that he had some expertise in matters of recruitment. I have here the costs associated with recruiting somebody. It is from an established HR report, which states that, on average, it costs £30,614 to recruit somebody, per employee. You can argue about how they got to that methodology. Part of it includes work loss because of an inefficient process and having to put mentors in or whatever else. Those are the statistics that I gave earlier about how quickly it takes to come up to speed. I can also tell you that it costs about £6,000 in management time, recruitment fees, advertising and whatever. No employer in their right mind will try to waste money; that is not their purpose. They should be trying to recruit people who are right for their job and give them time to show what they can do.”
“Unless you can come up with better information for me or some other alternative evidence, all that I can go for is what people have said. The employers have said that they would like to recruit more people but that they are afraid of the legislation.”
“We are going to go over this again. I am not an expert in employing people, but I will tell you who is: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and engineering employers. Those are the people who actually employ. What you are going through at the moment is shedding labour from the Civil Service. That is our big process. You are going to have to find a way in which to get those people work or else put them on the scrapheap.”
“I can tell you that, if you make it too difficult to employ people, as is currently happening, people will not take the chance of employing anybody. There is no bigger challenge for our economy or us as legislators in the Assembly than to find a way of getting gainful, local employment.”
“The real challenge for us is how you make such a thing happen. <BR /> <BR />There is some discussion about zero-hours contracts, and there was a really good intervention on that issue that they are not bad for everybody. Some people like zero-hours contracts. Of course you do not want people to be exploited, but I was struck by the Minister's proposals for dealing with zero-hours contracts. They were produced about a year ago, and I heard Mr Agnew say to the Minister, "Tell us what your proposals are for this zero-hours business", but the proposals, as I understood them, were that, if you were working for six months or whatever, you would be entitled to a contract. In fact, employers would be forced to state why they were not giving you a contract. All of that works only if you are not working for an agency.”
“It is slightly lower, I have to confess, than the economic metropolis of Lisburn. The issue is that you are trying to encourage those people who have work to take on more people, and they are telling you in evidence that they will not do it because they fear the employment law. <BR /> <BR />Some people in ICTU came forward and said that it is not such a big issue. I think that it said that it was nineteenth on the list, but you have to remember that it is comparing with what happens in GB. It is talking about a country where an SME is fewer than 250 people. Our economy is not like that. Our economy is made up of microbusinesses — businesses that employ fewer than 10 people. They are owner-driven, and you want them to employ people. Just think what would happen if we could encourage each one to take on one person.”
“It almost forces employers that are so minded — I am not saying that I agree with them — to act in one year and not two. You would benefit if you could move to doing two years. That is what the Federation of Small Businesses says. <BR /> <BR />Mr Swann talked about his position. The FSB, I am quite sure, is a reputable organisation in his constituency. In Ballymena, which, I believe, is close to his abode, 1,230 firms employ fewer than 10 people. Many of them replied to the survey. They are saying to him, "We would like to take on more people, but we do not have the HR department to take them on. We are worried about this. Give us a chance, and we will employ your local people — your constituents". <BR /> <BR />I say to Mr Diver that, in Derry, the figure is 2,500.”
“The point that I made earlier, Mr Agnew, was that you can do that at 11 months as well, because what you get at the moment is churn. Most of the people who are showing up for further employment have been made unemployed after 13 weeks. Look at the casual staff that are taken on over Christmas. What could be worse than turning up for a job and being asked, "In the past five years, how often have you been employed?" and having to say, "Five times for 13 weeks". What you actually want is to get a bit of continuity of experience. You want to work in the one job and get a chance to show what you can do, and, frankly, if it takes you a bit of time to get up the learning curve, so be it. Let us give you the chance to do it. Perhaps it is counter-intuitive, but that is why a one-year constraint does not help anybody.”
“What you find out from the Federation of Small Businesses is that there are 118,000 small businesses in Northern Ireland, but only 32,000 actually have employees. The survey that it brought back says that most of those businesses have between one and five employees. They were asked what problem they faced. If you want to get jobs for our young people or even, dare I say it, for those who are not so young and are having to get a new job after being made redundant, you have to persuade somebody to take them on. Here is the unpalatable truth and the words that maybe you should not say but which should be said, if that makes sense: the world does not owe you a living. People demand a job as a right, but, in the employment world, you have to negotiate with your employer: I will do certain work, and you will give me a certain amount of money.”
“In fact, I think that even the Minister, in his Civil Service-speak, said that there is no evidence to suggest such and such. You could also have said, however, that there is no evidence to the contrary. In the absence of any research, you might ask yourself why there is no research to inform the debate, given that we started in 2012, if memory serves me, when I was Chair of the Committee, but there is research. If you want research, it comes from the Federation of Small Businesses — a very respected organisation that, I think, many Members in the Chamber have attended and supported. <BR /> <BR />It talks about small businesses, not the big multinationals, not the ones that have HR committees and not the ones that you can say, "Yes, they have to go and do these procedures".”
“I am just checking. <BR /> <BR />I am not afraid — you probably know this — to stand here on my own and say what I think. I did not know whether anybody would support this amendment. I brought it forward because I thought that we should have the debate. I have already made the point about us ducking the issue by moving it to affirmative procedures rather than negative resolution and about how that will set in stone what will happen. I am open to debate and argument. What I will say to each and every one of you is this: expect me to return the argument. If you make an argument, expect me to challenge it. That does not mean that I disrespect you or that I do not think that you have good points. The proper role of scrutiny is to ask questions. <BR /> <BR />Mr Flanagan, you have stated quite often that there is no evidence.”
“What you want is a mechanism whereby you are given an opportunity to show what you can do. That is key to my amendment. It is not trying to deprive people of rights; it is trying to create an environment in which we will get more jobs for our young people.”
“I will give way in just a moment. <BR /> <BR />This is the issue that I am trying to address. When you do not have a job, you cannot get experience. Therefore, you cannot get another job.”
“Mr Flanagan, in earlier contributions, was saying that the numbers went up and the numbers went down, but, actually, it makes no difference. <BR /> <BR />I will tell you where it does make a difference — not to the employees but to the people who are looking to employ people. Here is our position, which we should all be particularly worried about. About a year ago, a 'Belfast Telegraph' poll focusing on young people showed that 67% of them see their future as being outside Northern Ireland and that 70% of them think that our politicians are incapable of agreeing a joint vision for the future of the country. That is the problem facing us all. The biggest tragedy in Northern Ireland, often not spoken about, is our young people who have to leave to get a job.”
“These are issues that are an existing position. I thought that this was an entirely constructive position for the union because it said that maybe the qualifying period is not the big deal and is a sort of headline figure that we can just ignore. <BR /> <BR />It may be what the Minister was talking about when he said that you have to be hard on some things and get a negotiation on others. I do not know, but he will maybe say when his turn to speak comes back around. It seems to me that the argument over whether the qualifying period is one year or two years does very little to affect the unfair dismissals claim. In fact, that is what people have said in evidence. They have said that it makes no difference.”
“Let me just take that argument. I had a very good meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), which came to me a little bit alarmed about my amendment and asked to talk about it. We had a very good discussion. We agreed on many, many things, including the need to invest in skills and that we want to get early resolution and conciliation. We agreed that the independent assessor was a good idea, and it said, as a union, that it would not support taking anybody through a tribunal case if there was not a reasonable prospect of success. We agreed on all those issues. The representatives even said to me that the current workers' rights are relatively weak and that all that an employer has to do to get rid of anybody is to go through the process. You just go through the process, have the meeting, and do all of that.”
“I read out a list of statistics to show how poor things are in Northern Ireland, and I am going to talk about how poor things are in certain constituencies.”
“I am grateful for the argument, and I think that it should be put. I take the argument. You could use a similar argument when Mr Flanagan talks about how good we were for inward investment when the UK changed its rules. There is a lag between performance and outcome. We are trying to argue here on emotion. We are trying to talk here from a philosophical point of view rather than looking at the information. One of the things that I thought that Mr Diver's contribution highlighted is this philosophical stance of, "I am socially democratic, so I think that we should take this response". That is not necessarily the correct logical position, and I think that the word "logic" was in there. We are all trying to look to see what would make things better and how we would get more employment.”
“For SMEs, it is 24 weeks. For workers joining from another sector, it is 32 weeks. For new graduates, it is 40 weeks, and those coming from unemployment or inactivity take the longest time at 52 weeks. Part of the problem we are looking at here —-”
“People say, "Would you like evidence?", so here is some evidence about the length of time it takes to get up to speed if you have just started a job. As Mr Diver said, it does depend, but an HR report says:”
“Well, you see, what is sometimes missing in this place is an articulate argument, where you set out certain bits of information and come round and say, "But let's look at the alternative". I do not want to upset people. In fact, I was saying to Mr Diver that I am sorry that my contribution seemed to have moved him from, "I'm interested in what Mr McCrea has to say" to "Under no circumstances will we ever support it". Maybe it was not one of my best interventions. My intention is to say it is entirely reasonable for us to be looking for ways to protect people who are exploited by unscrupulous employers. Mr Flanagan made that point, and I agree with it. The point I am making, however, is that when you tighten down information or legislation, you force people to go in the opposite direction. <BR /> <BR />This is just information.”
“I wonder if Mr Flanagan would support his colleague the Sinn Féin MLA Barry McElduff in calling for the Government to address the issue of emigration and create jobs where they are most needed — in Tyrone and, presumably, Fermanagh as well. Those are areas where we need to do that.”
“Here is where we rank: the UK employment rate for the three months ending November 2015 shows that the lowest is Northern Ireland with 68·8%. The UK unemployment rate was highest in Northern Ireland at 5·9%. The UK economic inactivity rate is highest in Northern Ireland at 26·7%. The highest UK claimant count was in Northern Ireland at 4·3%. Our economic employment statistics are not good. <BR /> <BR />The Member from Sinn Féin proposing this took great delight in quoting views from different parties, and asking, "Did you really agree this?", so let me return the favour. Apparently, at least 40 people are leaving County Tyrone per week. The high rate of unemployment means that many are looking for jobs in Australia and elsewhere.”
“I want to make it clear that in proposing my amendment, I am not seeking to attack workers' rights. One thing that was missed in the debate, but which perhaps came out on the periphery, is the impact of zero-hours contracts in certain circumstances, which people are rightly concerned about. However, there was little discussion about agency working, except when the Minister, in an intervention with Mr Flanagan about teachers, said that this gives even less protection. The problem is that when you start to get over-tightening of labour legislation, people move to other areas. They go into zero-hours contracts or agency working, or they take steps to avoid it. <BR /> <BR />Why is that important to us? Look at our regional employment statistics.”
“Nobody but nobody in the Chamber will, I believe, stand up to advocate for rogue employers who are doing bad things to employees. I do not think that anybody would try to make that argument. The argument from a number of people is, "Show me the evidence" or, "The evidence that you have is not correct".”
“I just want some clarity. Are you calling for a right to have whatever hours you want to work? Are you saying that if you are on a zero-hours contract, you can say, "I will work 36 hours a week and you must provide it"? You could take an extension to that. Are we putting into a bill of rights that you have to have full employment in Northern Ireland as an absolute right?”
“Will the Member give way to the back here?”
“In your experience, how long would it take for someone to get up to speed?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. I have always wondered about this argument: if an employer takes that action at 11 months, why would he not take it at 23 months or at some other time? If employers are unscrupulous, surely they will just say, "You're gone". You could argue, controversially, that a two-year extension is better, because at least someone got two years before they were unfairly dismissed. <BR /> <BR />The Member mentioned his expertise, so I want to ask him another question. I asked this question of Mr Flanagan, but he did not know the answer. I have information on how long, on average, it takes an employee who comes in off the street to get up to speed and be a fully functioning employee so that his or her suitability for the business can be assessed.”
“Given that the Member is so keen on evidence-based assessment, how long does he think that it would take an employee who is joining work, having been unemployed in the past, to get up to speed so that he is fully protected? Does he have any figures?”
“Just before the Member moved off the issue of evidence-based policy, he quoted in response to Mr Ross the figure of 28,000. Is he aware that that is a simple pro-rata estimate for Northern Ireland? It is just plucked from the air. We have no real idea what the number is. It is a simple pro-rata estimate, where 4% to 5% gives 28,000 to 35,000. In other places, we say that it is only 1·2% of the employment of Northern Ireland. Before we pass any legislation, would it not be better to get some evidence base?”
“I want to ask the Member whether he has identified these really rogue employers, these really bad people who are absolutely outrageous to those whom they employ. Does he think that we should ban them altogether? Does he think that we should tell them to sling their hook, leave Northern Ireland and not be part of us because we do not want that type of employer here? That is where the logic takes us — if these people are so bad, so heinous and so wrong, there is no saving them. Let us get rid of them all.”
“This is important. This is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is something that we need a considered opinion on.”
“Before we move off that issue, the elephant in the room is that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is a big issue. It is something that people have very strong views on. I have to say that I am surprised that the Ulster Unionist Party, which I previously thought was a party that supported the conservative position, is now taking a different view from the one that it had taken before. I am sure that, as Mr Ross mentioned, there are many small owner-run businesses that have supplied evidence to him and his Committee and his party to say that this is a very serious issue. I am far from being a prophet of my own doom; I actually think that this is where we should be having the debate. This is what we want to do. If a petition of concern comes forward, that is the process, but we should have the debate front and central.”
“I want to clarify something about the move to affirmative resolution. What the Minister said raises the possibility of a petition of concern stopping the issue. His assertion that the matter is not finished could be open to a different interpretation — I shall put it that way — in that I think that this will be the end of the matter. If we vote no to my amendment and accept affirmative resolution for change, that is the end of it for ever and a day; we will not get it through. We should maybe address the issue today.”
“Can you clarify whether that secondary legislation would be agreed via affirmative or negative resolution?”
“<BR /> <BR />I have made my points on the issues that I want to deal with. I cannot help but think that some things that we are trying to achieve have been lost in the haste to push the legislation through. Perhaps I will deal with those when I speak on the second group of amendments.”
“It is not generally the case that this place can overturn ministerial decisions. In fact, what we have seen is the repeated use of petitions of concern. <BR /> <BR />To avoid doubt, I raise that issue here and now. This is a classic case of the dog that does not bark. If it has no meaning, why are we making such an issue out of moving from negative resolution to affirmative resolution? Here is what will happen: it will be impossible for the House to change any of these regulations in the face of a petition of concern. That is not the right way forward. I would much prefer to have an argument, discussion or resolution on the various points. Mr Flanagan should be entitled to win his argument, if he and his colleagues can do so without having to rely on some procedural motion.”