Phil Flanagan
Fermanagh and South Tyrone · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his answer. There is an old guise that you should never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. The question that I submitted asked the Minister how many social houses had been started in the 2015-16 financial year, but somehow it was changed.”
“I thank the Minister for his attempt to answer the question. I put him on notice that it was not he who initiated the process, but I am looking for him to intervene and stop it as a locally elected representative. <BR /> <BR />There are roughly 1,000 people on the housing waiting list in Fermanagh, and nearly 300 of those are in stress.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. The licence has not been extended, but does the Minister accept that the decision to extend InfraStrata's time frame for a work programme sets a dangerous precedent on fracking, particularly given that InfraStrat…”
“How does the Minister square that with the ministerial involvement of his predecessor, Nelson McCausland, interfering in where social houses are built for political, parading or electoral reasons.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, and I have no difficulty in supporting this request for information sharing, but I have two short questions. First, he said that this is a tax on employment. Does he have any sort of a headline figure as to what the scale of the financial implications of this will be for local employers?”
“<BR /> <BR />Requirements are now being placed on the Department with regard to careers. That is a very positive development that the Minister brought forward after the Committee initiated a review of careers advice, which was then followed up by a piece of work that the Minister commissioned from an expert group on careers.”
The complete record
Every one of 767 lines we hold for Phil Flanagan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 16.
“I thank the Minister for his attempt to answer the question. I put him on notice that it was not he who initiated the process, but I am looking for him to intervene and stop it as a locally elected representative. <BR /> <BR />There are roughly 1,000 people on the housing waiting list in Fermanagh, and nearly 300 of those are in stress. As Mrs Kelly indicated, land acquisition is a significant issue for housing associations. Can the Minister indicate whether, in theory, he would be supportive of the transfer of a 17·2 acre site out of his Department to the local authority, which could then decide whether to sell it on the open market, thereby taking away the housing association's ability to deliver on the site?”
“I am looking for an assurance from the Minister that those houses may be built in the future.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. There is an old guise that you should never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. The question that I submitted asked the Minister how many social houses had been started in the 2015-16 financial year, but somehow it was changed. What astounds me about the answer is that one social house was started in the whole county in that time, namely a single bespoke unit in Brookeborough. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister give me an assurance that there is a commitment to building social houses in rural areas? The perception amongst rural dwellers is that there is no point in adding your name to the social housing waiting list because there is absolutely no expectation that houses will be built in rural communities.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. The licence has not been extended, but does the Minister accept that the decision to extend InfraStrata's time frame for a work programme sets a dangerous precedent on fracking, particularly given that InfraStrata failed to meet its original work programme? Will he outline why he feels that it was appropriate to extend that time frame and give such a company such latitude to drill boreholes, using a novel form of drilling, so close to public water reservoirs?”
“How does the Minister square that with the ministerial involvement of his predecessor, Nelson McCausland, interfering in where social houses are built for political, parading or electoral reasons. Does he accept that the building and allocation of social housing should be based on objective need rather than on any other determining factors?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister's statement rightly highlights that society needs to have:”
“I thank the Minister for giving way, and I have no difficulty in supporting this request for information sharing, but I have two short questions. First, he said that this is a tax on employment. Does he have any sort of a headline figure as to what the scale of the financial implications of this will be for local employers? Secondly, can he give some information on how this information will be used? For example, if this information shows that there is less money coming back here through this levy than is being paid out by employers, what scope will there be for the Department for the Economy or any other statutory authority to challenge that or to seek additional investment?”
“A change in how we value and treat people with special educational needs is an issue across society. Those issues are well reflected and identified in the inquiry report. <BR /> <BR />It has been a very rewarding piece of work personally. I do not think that there are any votes in work of this nature, but I think that the effort that MLAs from the Committee have put into it has been hugely rewarding for us. I commend the report to the House.”
“We want to see the establishment of those forums and hubs to meet the needs of those people, to allow open conversations to take place and to allow people to feed back what is going right or wrong with the service provision. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the staff who provide first-class services for people with special educational needs. Their ability to deliver is restricted by what would be called the "system". We owe them a debt of gratitude for having the patience to still work within that deeply flawed system. We owe it to them to change the system so that it meets the needs not only of the people who use it but of those who work in it. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that money is a problem. You could spend as much money as you could find on this area, and it would still not be sorted. However, that is not the only problem.”
“There needs to be a complete change of mindset as to how we get something done instead of saying why we cannot do it. That has been a frustrating aspect of the inquiry for the people who are heavily involved in campaigning and lobbying to get these changes. <BR /> <BR />Four recommendations fall within the parameters of "coordination". The big one, which is not really the one that you would expect, is that we fully support the development of local forums or hubs to bring together not only key stakeholders from the statutory and voluntary sectors but families and key employers in an area, who must also be involved in the process. There is no point in statutory and voluntary organisations talking to each other if they are not reflecting the views of the service users and the employers and the opportunities that exist in an area.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have written here "The majority of my remarks will focus", but I have already used four of my seven minutes, so it will not be the majority. I was mandated to speak about the requirement for coordination between Departments. The most common frustration that I heard through all our engagements was that, no matter what we were told, there is still a silo mentality between Departments and agencies. There is not one overarching Department or agency that takes responsibility and says, "We'll deal with that". Everybody says, "Not my problem" or "Transport is not a problem for me. Somebody else has to sort that out". That is where we need better coordination. We need people to work better together and to come up with solutions instead of finding reasons why something cannot be done.”
“This is detailed and complex work. We are dealing with issues across the spectrum, from complex health needs to the provision of services in rural areas and everything in between. The advice that the experts gave us was helpful, as was the advice from service users. Among the stakeholders who came forward and identified problems, there was not always agreement on the solutions. The Committee took the issues in the round and tried to identify sensible and pragmatic solutions. I am hopeful that, when the many people who take a keen interest in the subject read the report, they will be content with the work that we have commenced and the recommendations we have called on the Department to bring forward.”
“We have identified, along with the stakeholders, the parents and the people who use the service, the range of problems and complexities. We now expect solutions, and the Chair of the Committee has indicated that MLAs will keep a watchful eye on this.”
“It was because of those people and their effective lobbying of MLAs from all parties that the Committee engaged in the process. I pay tribute to them and to the MLAs who listened to them, took their serious concerns on board and became champions for them. For me, that is effective working for an MLA: engaging with a section of society that generally is not heard and does not necessarily respond to public consultations. As I look through the report and its 44 recommendations, it is fair to say that those people have now been heard. There is now a substantive report that needs to be acted on, and there is cross-party support for urgent action. The message that we are sending to the permanent government — the Civil Service — is that we now expect solutions to be brought forward.”
“Bronwyn had a very good working relationship with them and was very much across the detail of the extent and range of problems facing people in rural areas in trying to access services that do not exist in the first place. Even when they do exist, there is a major barrier to trying to access them.”
“I thank the Committee staff, who carried out an amazing amount of work to put the report together and kept us right, and all the outside experts who advised members and Committee staff. I also thank the departmental officials, from a range of Departments, who were willing to come before the Committee and keep us right, even when we did not agree with what they were saying, which was nearly all the time. <BR /> <BR />In setting the context, some Members outlined how we arrived at this. As MLAs for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, my colleague Bronwyn and I received an awful lot of correspondence and lobbying from people, mainly parents, in south Tyrone.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I start by paying tribute to all those who supported the Committee in carrying out the work and who helped us MLAs gain a better understanding of the issues facing people who have special educational needs. I pay tribute, as many colleagues have done, to the people who came forward and presented their personal stories and gave us their personal experience of how the system had failed them or of how it could have been set up better to meet their needs. <BR /> <BR />Personally, I have learnt a lot from the deliberations that we have had over the past number of years and from looking into the issue. It has been very helpful.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that the Minister will accept that a significant proportion, if not the majority, of people who are economically inactive want to get into work. Does he accept that there exist many barriers preventing people from taking up a job, such as a shortage of affordable and accessible childcare, as well as the availability of jobs in some parts of the North?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Having engaged through the Committee and outside it with employers and employee representatives, I know that there is huge positive sentiment for the round-table forum that was established by the Department through the LRA. Is there any mechanism for that to continue indefinitely, or is it something that a future Minister will have to re-establish? Is there some provision for it to continue without political interference in the short term?”
“I thank the Minister for his sentiments on that. Will he give us an indication whether it is his or the Department's intention to engage in some sort of collaborative working with Members before engaging in a public consultation on zero-hours contracts to try to get maximum political consensus here before that consultation is launched?”
“All too often we hear examples of people realising that they want to do a certain profession but they cannot do it because, for example, they have not done the requisite GCSE to get onto the university course. So all those issues need to be dealt with at an early stage during the young person's development. The clause in the Bill that deals with careers advice is very welcome. <BR /> <BR />The only question I have for the Minister is to do with commencement. Most of the Act is subject to commencement once the Department brings in an order to make it happen. The only clarity that I seek from the Minister at this stage is whether he has any indication from the Department, however rough, as to when that may happen.”
“Young people and their parents want to go down the road of being professionals: lawyers, doctors, architects or accountants. That is not really where the jobs are going to lie in the future. We need to make sure that young people are being empowered to make decisions that will allow them to have a decent standard of living in the future, and that means being skilled-up and qualified in areas of growth. It does not necessarily mean that we need to make our young people serve an economy in the future, but it means that young people who want to go down the road of getting a job in a growing area must be given that careers advice at a young age so that they can target their GCSE and A-level choices towards going down that path.”
“<BR /> <BR />Requirements are now being placed on the Department with regard to careers. That is a very positive development that the Minister brought forward after the Committee initiated a review of careers advice, which was then followed up by a piece of work that the Minister commissioned from an expert group on careers. Those are all positive developments, and we are now making sure that young people, when they go through the formal education process or even when they are outside it, will be required to be given proper careers advice. All too often we hear stories that people are being given inadequate or inappropriate careers advice. So many of our young people are going to do university degrees when there is realistically no proposition that they will gain employment in that area. That is a societal problem that we need to address.”
“The fact that employers will now have to report on the extent of the differential in pay between male and female workers within their organisation is a fairly progressive move. There is zero resistance to that in our society. Even among employers and their representatives, there is common agreement that we need to tackle this issue because it has been going on for far too long. Even though it is now illegal to discriminate against workers based on gender, it still seems to be the case that females are paid less than their male counterparts. That is an issue that we need to first identify and then follow up with the action plan that each employer will have to put in place. Also, the Executive will have to bring forward a strategy and an action plan and publish them within 18 months of the enactment of the Bill.”
“It was a missed opportunity to send a message to workers and to show positive leadership to other legislators on these islands on how to tackle zero-hours contracts and how to introduce progressive legislation that would have protected workers. However, it was not to be, as we could not get agreement. We are where we are. <BR /> <BR />Clause 19 deals with gender pay, and the Minister said that this is the first time that the Assembly has approved an equality matter since devolution. If that is the case, it is to be welcomed. The fact that we agreed that we need to introduce steps to tackle the gender pay gap is positive and welcome.”
“It would have been much better if we had had agreement on the exact steps we should have taken to protect workers from the worst excesses of zero-hours contracts. We had lengthy debates at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. The Minister is right that it would have been better to put those in the Bill, but the next-best option is to empower a future Minister in the Department for the Economy to bring forward regulations, which will be subject to the full scrutiny of the Committee and the Assembly. That process should not be delayed too long and should be an immediate priority for whoever takes over from the Minister after the May election.”
“We and the Department have learned a lot from the process, and we explored other issues that are not in the Bill, which, as Mr Buchanan outlined, we may need to return to. <BR /> <BR />This has been a good process, although the Bill does not include all the measures that I wanted, and nor does it include all the measures that some Members opposite wanted. The legislation is a good compromise that we can all live with and that enhances the rights of workers here, which is very welcome. <BR /> <BR />I will focus my remarks on three or four clauses. Clause 18 deals with zero-hours contracts, and I share the Minister's disappointment that we could not deal with the issue in the Bill.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Like other Members, I welcome the passage of the Bill and the fact that we are at Final Stage today. I commend the Minister for steering the ship of what was, at times, fairly contentious legislation, with conflicting opinions on both sides over the balance to be struck between employers and employees. The Minister has done a good job in finding consensus and compromise from all sides, for which he is to be commended. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my thanks to Committee members and staff, who carried out excellent work in scrutinising the Bill and advising the Minister on how best to proceed. I also thank the departmental officials and all those who provided expert evidence to the Committee on the best way forward.”
“For that reason, we do not think that this is the proper legislative mechanism, but it is something that we would be willing to explore with other Members, as we have done in the past, to find a way of doing it that meets the needs of everybody concerned.”
“"Protection", Jim, would be a good word. What we proposed earlier with our raft of amendments, as Anna Lo helpfully called them, were changes, most of which have been subject to a full public consultation by the Department for Employment and Learning or which would be through the regulations process, but I will be reminded by the Deputy Speaker that I am no longer speaking about the amendments in group 3. <BR /> <BR />Nobody can be quite sure what the unintended consequences of repealing article 71 would be. We are not opposed to the principle of repealing article 71; we are concerned about the potential unintended consequences that might arise if it were to be repealed.”
“I thank the Deputy Speaker for his intervention —”
“You asked me to try; I did not say that I would succeed. If you take the example of —”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I presume that he is speaking as an individual Member in this debate. I can see where the Member finds the inconsistency, but if you take the —”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that the phrase that Stephen Farry was hunting for when he was talking about the debates that we have had today is "consistent inconsistency". Members from some parties have highlighted the fact that we cannot support some amendments because they have not gone through any scrutiny process, and, now, at the end of the day — we are not even near the end of the day because this has gone on longer than it was supposed to — but, at this stage of the day, the same Members are arguing that that is not a good enough reason for opposing something. Consistent inconsistency is the order of the day. Before I conclude —”
“He reckons that the current mechanism for dealing with blacklisting through civil law provision is sufficient and argues that there is recourse through criminal law for anybody who breaches the Data Protection Act. I do not think that that is sufficient. Some trade unionists do not agree with that, and that is why the legislative change has been proposed. I suppose that the proposed changes to blacklisting have been somewhat overshadowed by the amendment from left field by the two Members from the Ulster Unionist Party. Far be it for me to criticise anybody for bringing amendments from left field into Minister Farry's Bill, which may well be described in the Bill Office as now being a skip where everything is dumped.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not recall Mr Obama being present during the debate that we are winding up on, but I am happy to be corrected that President Obama is a strong advocate of integrated education, as are many other Members of this House and elsewhere in society. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister highlighted how the issue appears to have fallen between the stools of OFMDFM and the Department of Education, yet the Minister for Employment and Learning is here to respond to the issue. We now have three stools that the whole thing has fallen between. <BR /> <BR />Minister Farry seems to — I cannot even read what he said now — sorry, Minister Farry responded first on blacklisting. That is why I was confused.”
“Chris Hazzard argued that, given the sensitive nature of the matter and the fact that it deals with repealing equality legislation, the unintended consequences of the proposed legislative change need to be fully explored before it is repealed.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members who contributed to the debate on the group 3 amendments that deal with the proposed criminalisation of blacklisting and the repeal of article 71. I will go through some of the remarks that Members made. <BR /> <BR />Mr Buchanan was a strong proponent of equality during his short contribution and never mentioned blacklisting. Mr Diver spoke in favour of criminalising blacklisting and never mentioned article 71. That seemed to be the way the debate went on, as Members focused on amendment Nos 26 and 27, while a minority spoke on amendment No 23. <BR /> <BR />Sandra Overend provided an overview of why she believes article 71 is no longer required. Trevor Lunn appeared to ponder the question of whether segregation was necessary in education in any sense.”
“The regulations also allow current and former trade union members to complain to an industrial tribunal if they are refused employment, subjected to a detriment or unfairly dismissed for a reason relating to a blacklist. Employment agencies are also unable to refuse to provide a service because a worker appears on a blacklist. Whilst all of that is positive and much better than what we had before 2014, what is actually needed is strong legislation to deter people from engaging in what is already an illegal activity. Amendment No 23 delivers that and will force the Department to make regulations that would make blacklisting a specific criminal offence, something that is long overdue.”
“Given the secretive nature of blacklisting and the incredible difficulty in finding out if it is occurring, a strong deterrent is required. Blacklisting must become a criminal offence, with a prison sentence a definite option for the guilty. It does not suffice that it is unlawful unless there is a penalty for those involved in it. <BR /> <BR />Under the current regulations, it is unlawful to compile, use, sell or supply a blacklist containing details of people who are or have been trade union members or who are taking part or have taken part in trade union activities, where the blacklist may be used by employers to discriminate in relation to recruitment or the treatment of existing workers. Courts can award damages, including damages for injury to feelings, when the relevant provisions are breached.”
“Blacklisting victims could receive as little as £4,000 in what amounts to hush money. <BR /> <BR />The existing regulations do not go far enough, in my opinion. It is now unlawful to make and use a blacklist or to refuse employment or subject an employee to a detriment due to a blacklist entry. However, the law does not make the process of blacklisting itself a criminal offence. Although blacklisting is described as unlawful, the regulations that the Minister brought forward do not contain a free-standing right not to be blacklisted. <BR /> <BR />The Consulting Association was certainly not the only blacklister, and there is every possibility that the problem remains widespread today, because there are insufficient deterrents for people who engage in such activities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Over 3,000 construction workers were on the blacklist, and, at present, hundreds of blacklisted workers have lodged cases in the High Court against the companies that had blacklisted them. At the time, victims had no idea that they were blacklisted and often were not especially active in the trade union movement. Despite this, they found themselves on a secret blacklist, and, inevitably, work became harder to find or they were forced out of the construction industry. Blacklisting had terrible consequences for the individuals and their families, and the construction companies remain in denial. Rather than accepting their wrongdoing, they have tried to minimise the cost of wrecking workers' lives by establishing a counterfeit compensation scheme.”
“Whether blacklisting is taking place is irrelevant to me: proper legislation is required to ensure that people are discouraged from collecting lists of trade union members to block them from accessing employment opportunities. In March 2009, the extent of blacklisting in the construction sector was exposed when the Information Commissioner's Office raided the Consulting Association, which was a vetting service for checking potential employees, and confiscated its blacklist. That whole process was arrived at because of data protection laws, not because of blacklisting laws. Since that incident, not a single company involved in the vetting process has apologised to their victims for their actions.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. For the purposes of this group of amendments, I will direct my remarks towards amendment No 23 and the placing of a duty on the Department to make regulations that would make blacklisting a specific criminal offence. <BR /> <BR />Members may recall that enabling powers around blacklisting were first given in 1999, yet it took until 2014 for regulations to follow and for the matter to be dealt with in any way. Those regulations have not dealt with all the issues at the heart of the problem, but I commend the Minister for bringing forward the regulations earlier in the mandate. A public consultation took place on the issue in 2003, but at that time, as there was no hard evidence, according to DEL, that blacklisting was taking place, the regulations were not implemented.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Had he got Executive approval for the policy proposals that he brought forward on zero-hours contracts, would he still have stipulated that the Committee had only a fortnight to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety or would the Committee Stage have been carried out in such a way as to give the Committee sufficient time to engage in proper scrutiny, if that is actually the issue at the heart of the matter?”
“<BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks on the amendments. I appeal to all Members to support the amendments. I do not think we can waste the opportunity to deal with zero-hours contract workers. If we do not do it now, it will be another year or two years before the regulations provided for in the Alliance amendment are made. The people out there who are employed on zero-hours contracts, many of whom are being abused by employers, will not forgive us for not taking the opportunity to protect them from such immoral working practices.”
“The difference between these amendments and the all-encompassing Alliance Party amendment is that this one places a duty on the Department to bring forward those regulations, whereas amendment No 3 does not place that duty on the Department but merely gives it the power. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 deals with how the amendments will be interpreted and ensures that those who are genuinely self-employed will not be affected by the proposed changes. It also clarifies, for the purpose of the amendments, the difference between a worker and an employee. The recent increase in the rights of workers, which the Minister has championed largely through agency workers, has led to a move away from casual worker contracts toward zero-hours contract employees, even when that is not the most appropriate form of contract.”
“That could include some of the earlier amendments on requesting a contract or requesting fixed and regular working hours. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 deals with continuous employment and makes technical amendments to the existing legislation that deals with the issue. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 16 gives the Department the right to introduce regulations that would establish a maximum proportion of workers that an employer can have on zero-hours contracts. The demand and the requirement for employers to use zero-hours contracts may well differ within sectors. This will be subject to further consultation, which would allow input from employers' representatives and the trade union movement.”
“The purpose of the amendment is that, if any of the aforementioned amendments are made and employees are allowed to request fixed and regular working hours or there is a duty to provide them with a written contract and an employee or a worker requests one of those things, there is protection, in that employers cannot punish them or subject them to a detriment just because they have requested a contract or fixed and regular working hours. There is also the provision that any worker who faces such a detriment shall be offered the right to make an application to an employment tribunal. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 makes the dismissal of an employee unfair if the primary reason for that dismissal is that the worker is a zero-hours contract worker or for other reasons, as the Department may specify by regulation.”
“Well, we can agree to differ: I read it to be one thing, and the Minister, in trying to put this on the long finger, wants to read another thing into it. From my reading of it, it is very simple. That amendment would prohibit the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts. It would make them void unless an employer could bring forward a compelling business reason why they should be in use. That would be up to the employer to prove. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 makes it unlawful for an employer to subject a worker to a detriment simply because they are a zero-hours contract worker or for other reasons as the Department may specify by regulation.”