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 2 of 16.
“The fact that an employer wants to use exclusivity clauses and zero-hours contracts is not sufficient to warrant them having exclusivity clauses. We are getting hung up on the detail of what the Minister interprets from an amendment and what I interpret from an amendment.”
“If the Minister reads amendment No 10, he will see it says that:”
“I do not understand how Minister Farry reads into that that an employer could put forward any possible reason for having an exclusivity clause in a zero-hour contract. I read that as providing that an employer must have a compelling business reason. It will be up to the employer to justify it, and it is as not as straightforward as saying, "Because we want to use zero-hour contracts with exclusivity clauses. That is our compelling reason". The onus will be on the employer to prove that there is a compelling business reason for it.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. There is no problem with amendment No 12. It is very clear-cut:”
“It deals with exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts and makes them void, except in circumstances where the employer can demonstrate a compelling business reason, such as confidentiality or the protection of trade secrets, to justify such an agreement. I thought that there was widespread agreement across the House and across society that exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts were unacceptable. I heard Members opposite, from all parties, indicate such at Consideration Stage, when they argued that we should not go as far as an outright ban but that issues such as exclusivity clauses should be addressed and not be allowed to stand.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 11 is similar to amendment No 10 but deals with continuous employment. It places a duty on employers who have continuously employed a zero-hours contract worker for a period of 12 weeks to offer that worker a fixed and regular working hour contract 12 weeks after their first engagement with the employer. It also establishes that any worker who works 12 weeks out of a period of 26 weeks shall be entitled to the same rights. Any worker who is not offered a fixed and regular contract shall once again be entitled to make an application to an employment tribunal. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 is very simple.”
“At present, too many employers use and abuse zero-hours contracts by having a significant proportion of their staff on such contracts, without considering the needs of the employees or workers for job security, an expectation of earnings and the ability to plan for future events, such as holidays or time off, or even for the assurance that one can borrow enough money to buy a car or own one's home. It is made clear in the amendment that only compelling business reasons can be used to turn down a request for a fixed and regular working contract and that a desire by an employer to use zero-hours contracts does not meet that criterion. Finally, any employee who is refused or does not get a response within the stipulated time shall be entitled to make an application to an employment tribunal to have their case heard.”
“Through amendment No 9, workers who are not given 72 hours' notice that they are requested or required to work a shift would be paid time and a half for that shift. In the event that the shift is cancelled without reasonable notice they would also be entitled to be compensated for that period. These two amendments would go some way to protecting workers from what I described at Consideration Stage as lazy and ineffective management practices and would certainly address the problem facing the small number of workers whose rights are being eroded by bad employers. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 gives workers the right to request fixed and regular employment but no more often than every 12 weeks. It also places a duty on employers to respond within 10 working days of receiving the request.”
“Those people get no compensation or payment for the period in question. What we propose would address that.”
“This means that zero-hours contract workers cannot be penalised just because they are being placed on a zero-hours contract. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 sets out that all zero-hours contract workers should be given at least 72 hours notice of any request or requirement to undertake a period of employment or any cancellation of a period of employment already agreed. What happens at present in some workplaces is that many workers have returned to the days of queuing up outside the docks or factory, waiting to see whether they will be called in for a day's work. Such employment practices cannot be tolerated in this day and age. Some employers, a very small number, bring in all their staff every day and then send the zero-hours contract workers home again.”
“In complementing the proposed definition of a zero-hours contract worker, any worker who is not given that written notice will be regarded as though they were a zero-hours contract worker for the purposes of these proposals. It is a fairly simple thing. An employee, or worker, is entitled to a written contract within seven days of starting to work and, if they do not get one, they will be deemed as a zero-hours contract worker. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 ensures that zero-hours contract workers are treated in the same way as other workers as regards terms and conditions of employment. In essence, what that means is that if a fixed or regular working-hours contract worker is entitled to overtime, then a zero-hours contract worker should be entitled to the same basic entitlement.”
“He has brought forward a range of policy proposals to the Executive to try and deal with the issue, but, unfortunately, there could not be agreement within the Executive on how best to tackle zero-hours contracts, because some Members wanted the Minister to go much further than he proposed. Unfortunately, he decided that there just was not time to deal with any of this and, as such, it has been put on the long finger, and the Minister has not brought forward any policy proposals because he is, in effect, hamstrung by the Executive and by time in that regard. <BR /> <BR />I move on to the specific amendments tabled in my name and those of my colleagues. Amendment No 6 gives employees the right to be given written notice of the minimum number of hours of their employment within seven days of the commencement of the contract.”
“We have a responsibility to send out a message to people that we are actually dealing with the issue. Giving a future Minister powers to deal with it is not dealing with it. It is, once again, delaying the resolution of a problem that needs to be sorted as a matter of priority. <BR /> <BR />What we propose complements the approach envisaged by the Alliance Party, without leaving everything in its totality for a year or two before a solution is found. As I said to Mr Buchanan, the Minister has already engaged in extensive public consultation around the issue of zero-hours contracts.”
“So, there is not really an issue of definition. I accept that issues might arise in England from the definition included in our amendment No 5, but it is very similar to the Alliance Party's amendment No 3, and both provide for the Department to alter the definition by regulation at a later stage. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that putting the issue on the long finger is sufficient. The abuses of zero-hours contract workers happen on a daily basis through a range of guises now. Merely adopting the position of waiting for a future Minister to bring forward some regulations to deal with it is not sufficient in my opinion. It is clear that some Members are burying their heads in the sand by saying that this is going to sort out the whole problem.”
“I hear what the Minister says but I do not necessarily agree with him. The amendment we tabled to bring in a definition of zero-hours contracts would have included the ability for the Department to change or amend the definition of a zero-hours contract by regulation, to reflect the concern — that the Minister has indicated for a number of years — that, regardless of what mechanisms we bring in to deal with this issue, some employers will always try to circumvent them. The opportunity for amending the definition by regulation exists in our amendment No 5, but it also exists in the Alliance Party's amendment No 3; so, there is flexibility for the Department to realise, over time, that some employers are changing how they are abusing workers and it allows the Department to change the definition.”
“What is on the table here is an enabling power for a future Minister to bring something forward and our options, which would deal with some of the worst abuses of zero-hours contracts immediately.”
“I hear what the Member is saying, and I hear Mr McCarthy telling me to answer him. <BR /> <BR />I suppose that the fundamental difference is that there are, in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — not to get too far away from the zero-hours contract issue — not two competing options, where something "may" be done, or, because there is an alternative proposal, where something "is" done. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no party bringing forward an amendment in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that states that smoking will be banned in cars. The only option on the table there is that the Minister may bring forward a regulation.”
“so there is actually no legal requirement on the Department to bring forward regulations that would improve things. Therefore, all the amendment really does is to provide the Department with the opportunity to bring forward secondary legislation to deal with the issue.”
“It is a forward step, but I certainly do not think that it goes anywhere near far enough, and it demonstrates a clear lack of ambition by Members of the Alliance Party and other Members in the House, who are happy to settle for future regulation, with no surety that improvements will be made to the rights of working people. <BR /> <BR />It must also be remembered that the first line of the amendment states:”
“There has been some criticism here that the amendments were not scrutinised by the Committee, but members of the Committee will perhaps recall that it was given all of two weeks to discuss the Employment Bill, to take evidence and table potential amendments, so there was not really the scope to engage in proper scrutiny even if the amendments had been tabled for the consideration of the Committee at its earliest possible stage. <BR /> <BR />I will deal first with amendment No 3, from the Alliance Party. As has been said, it is a broad enabling amendment to allow a future Minister to bring forward regulations dealing with the whole issue to prevent abuses arising out of the use of zero-hours contracts. I have no great difficulty with supporting it.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to put forward arguments in favour of the Sinn Féin amendments to deal with the vexed issue of zero-hours contracts. As you will be aware, my party tabled an amendment at Consideration Stage that would have prohibited zero-hours contracts. The House did not support the proposal, so we have brought forward a range of amendments today that will protect workers from some of the most awful working practices that exist in the developed world.”
“The Minister, with the support of the Executive, carried out a public consultation, but unfortunately, some of us felt that the Minister's policy proposals just did not go far enough. That is why we tabled amendments that go much further than the Minister had anticipated. For the Member to suggest that there was no consultation is, in fact, incorrect.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He said that no consultation has been carried out, but does he accept that the Minister carried out a very extensive public consultation on this issue and that, through the Committee, we were given a summary of consultation responses and were contacted by a number of people who expressed their concern about the use of zero-hours contracts? For the Member to say that there has been no public consultation on this issue is incorrect.”
“The Member's argument is quite contradictory. On the one hand, she says that this power will allow any future Minister, at any time of his or her choosing, to bring regulations forward. Yet the Member has not stipulated when any future Minister will have to bring regulations forward or when they will be made. So we could be sitting here for another one to three years waiting for this issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile there are proposals on the table that could be enacted much more quickly. So whilst the Member says that nothing is being lost by this amendment alone being voted through, on every day that goes by without this issue being addressed, the rights of working people are being eroded, and a small number of employers are allowed to abuse people who are on zero-hours contracts at the minute.”
“The establishment of a living wage agency would allow us to be much better informed about the potential financial implications of that.”
“That could be one of the strong points of the living wage agency: it could have an accreditation scheme whereby employers are publicly known to be living wage employers. The chances of getting better staff and getting more applicants for vacancies would improve a business's reputation, and I think that it would be a badge that employers would want, along the lines of Investors in People and other forms of accreditation that are currently offered. The public sector should take the lead in that regard. If we get a living wage agency up and running here, the first step that we should take is to ensure that all employees working directly or indirectly through the public sector are paid the living wage, whether that is direct employees, people working in the supply chain or subcontractors.”
“The Minister of Health made announcements about putting additional money into domiciliary care and into nursing and care home facilities because of the proposed increase in the minimum wage. That is a welcome step through which workers will be paid more, but it will have a knock-on impact for organisations that have fixed incomes and may not be fully able to cope with the increase. It will be up to the living wage agency to identify what barriers exist in some sectors to stop people being paid more. That is a fairly rational proposal. <BR /> <BR />There is also a strong argument to be made that, once we establish what a living wage for people here is, more and more employers will want to become accredited living wage employers.”
“Some Members have tried to use the fact that the powers to set a minimum wage have not been devolved as a reason for opposing the amendment: I do not buy it. The agency would not impact on the minimum wage at all. It would make recommendations on what the living wage should be and bring recommendations to the Executive on what barriers exist for employers who might want to pay the living wage and how we can make it more affordable for them to do so through changing existing policy levers or introducing new policy mechanisms. The living wage agency would be empowered to look at all those issues in the round and bring forward a figure that everyone could live with, as well as solutions to help the sectors that might struggle. <BR /> <BR />The recent proposed increase in the minimum wage has caused some concern amongst employers.”
“I heard one Member say that we were establishing another quango: well, we are not establishing a significant quango. It will be a very small organisation with as few members as the Minister shall determine. That small group of people will be charged with establishing what the living wage here is. At the end of the day, there is broad acceptance that we need more evidence-based policy here. If we are taking decisions, we need to have all the information that exists on the economic climate that we operate in, and one key factor is what the cost of living for our people is. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, we do not yet have the power to set a minimum wage. That power should be transferred and, if we did that, I would argue strongly that the minimum wage should be increased.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is not envisaged that the body would be overly expensive to operate because we propose that the staff who service it should be existing staff in the Department and that the nominees should be representatives of groups with a vested interest in this policy area. None of the staff complement would need to be paid any more than they get at the minute, and no members of the agency would need to be paid because they would be representatives of trade unions or employers' groups or from a professional economist background. The only cost that should be applicable in that regard would be to cover basic expenses and potential lost earnings.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendment states that it would be up to the Minister to appoint a chairperson and members of the living wage agency and to ensure an effective balance between trade unionists, employers' groups and economists so that it can take decisions and make recommendations in the round. Of course, any decisions that it takes will not be binding on employers. It is merely a mechanism to help to promote a highly paid economy, to help to encourage employers to move away from low pay, to pay workers a decent hourly rate so that they can get a good standard of living and to identify for the Executive what barriers exist in some sectors to paying the living wage.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is also a section that states that, before determining what constitutes a living wage, the agency would have to consult the employer and employee representative groups to ensure that all sides have an input into the determination of a figure. At the minute, a voluntary organisation based in England determines what a living wage is, but there is insufficient research here to determine what constitutes a living wage here. It is better to establish a non-statutory agency on a legislative footing not only to guide and assist the Executive in determining a living wage but to play a role in promoting to employers that employees should be paid the living wage.”
“The living wage agency would not replace the body that sets the minimum wage; it would be charged with determining what a living wage here is and promote that as the basic hourly rate that people should be paid and that it should be based on the minimum income standard. <BR /> <BR />The living wage agency would be empowered to identify barriers that impede employers in certain sectors, whether in retail, hospitality, services or others, from paying the living wage. The agency should then bring recommendations to the Executive to address those barriers using existing or potential policy levers. The living wage agency would also have the power to set targets to reduce the proportion of workers and employers who earn less than the living wage and to monitor progress in reducing that number.”
“The proposal from the British Government to increase the minimum wage does not go far enough to address the problems of low pay that exist in many sectors of our economy. We do not yet have the power to set a minimum rate of pay, but that is not what we are arguing about today, even though some Members have once again used the red herring that this is not a devolved matter as a reason for not supporting the amendment. The power to set a minimum rate of pay still rests with the British Government. In my opinion, that power should be transferred, and we, as locally elected representatives, should be able to tailor public policy to the needs of our citizens.”
“It is up to employers to comply with the law on equal pay, but there are many other barriers such as accessing childcare that prevent females receiving true equal pay in the workplace. The Executive need to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to remove those inequalities and barriers at the earliest possible stage. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 18 to 22 make provision for the establishment of an organisation to be known as the living wage agency for the purpose of measuring, researching and advancing a living wage. We need to build an economy that is based on well-paid jobs to help to take our people out of poverty. Too many workers here do not earn enough to have a decent standard of living.”
“I will reiterate a point that I made at Consideration Stage: the statistics at a macroeconomic level reveal that females here, on the whole, are paid more than males, but that can be explained by the prevalence of females who are employed in the public sector, where salaries tend to be higher, and by the decline in the construction sector, which was dominated by well-paid male workers in the round. <BR /> <BR />The strategy and action plan has to be a key weapon in tackling the gender pay gap. Only by getting accurate and detailed information from employers on the extent of the gender pay gap and the rationale behind it can the Executive put appropriate steps in place to rectify the situation.”
“I think that the Department can find a way through the regulations that it will bring forward to deal with any concerns that employers' groups might have about the requirements of people who have a disability, but I do not think that it is enough to warrant anybody opposing the amendment. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, there will also be a requirement on OFMDFM to publish a strategy that includes an action plan to eliminate the differential in pay between male and female employees.”
“Following further advice, we were guided that we could, in fact, transfer this responsibility to OFMDFM and have it remain within the broad parameters of the Bill, so we were more than content to make that change. That also applies to the requirement for the Executive to bring forward a strategy on tackling the gender pay gap. <BR /> <BR />Some Members highlighted a red herring through the issue of disability reporting. A mechanism already exists, however, for employees to self-report a disability, whether physical or mental. We envisage that it will be a matter for the Department to set out in regulations how best that should work. The CBI has tried to raise this as an issue, but I sincerely do not think that it is a matter of great import.”
“<BR /> <BR />The proposal that we brought forward at Consideration Stage also required that the first regulations on this matter needed to be made by 10 November. Following discussion with the Minister and his departmental officials, however, we accept that that time frame may be too tight, and we have amended it to be the end of June next year. That gives the relevant Department a full year for the regulations to be made. <BR /> <BR />The other substantive change is that the requirement will no longer be placed on DEL or, indeed, its successor Department; rather, it will be the responsibility of OFMDFM, as the Department that takes the lead on equality matters, to bring forward these regulations within that time frame. One reason for our intention to keep it within DEL is to do with the admissibility of the amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />The original proposal placed a duty on employers with more than 50 employees to report on the extent of the gender pay gap in an organisation. Following consultation with the CBI and others, however, we have decided that it would be more appropriate to allow the Department to set the minimum number, following public consultation, and to set a number that meets the needs of our circumstances, rather than merely to follow the position in Britain, where a figure of 250 has been adopted. We do not think that that is sufficient here, because the vast majority of employers here do not have anywhere near that number of personnel. We propose to allow the Department to bring forward its own proposal on the minimum number of employees that an employer must have to be required to engage in this reporting.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt i bhfabhar na leasuithe go dtí seo. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and I will focus my remarks on amendment No 4, which deals with gender pay, and amendment Nos 18 to 22, which would establish the living wage agency. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 places a requirement on OFMDFM to bring forward regulations setting out the manner in which employers must publish information on the extent of the pay differential between male and female employees. This is largely the same as our proposal at Consideration Stage. That received support, in words at least, from Members across the Chamber, except for a few small points that were raised during the debate, which have been reflected in today's revised version.”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer. I applaud her efforts to send out the positive message that we now have stable government. Will she give me a commitment that, as part of her meetings with political leaders in America, she and the deputy First Minister will raise the plight of citizens from this part of Ireland who are living in America and are deemed to be undocumented and highlight the continuing campaign to get them the ability to travel back to Ireland and then go back to America legally?”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. I take the opportunity to congratulate her on her elevation to the position of First Minister and wish her well in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />Will the First Minister accept that it would make some sense for the next meeting of the regional opportunities subgroup to take place when the Executive come to Fermanagh for their meeting and that the focus of that meeting should be about potential infrastructural and other economic interventions that the Executive could make to create economic opportunities in the county?”
“If we went only for companies that have more than 250 employees, the number of companies that you would be looking at would be very small, and the level of information and detail that you would get might not be enough to shine a light on the true extent of the problem.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The economy in Britain is somewhat different from the economy here. Siphoning off only companies that have more than 250 employees may well deliver a considerable number of companies to present a picture of the extent of the gender pay gap, allow some information to be delivered on why it exists and maybe present solutions for how to tackle it. However, if we were to adopt a situation here of trying to get information only from companies that have more than 250 employees, you would be looking at a very small information base. That is the rationale for choosing 50.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Once again, he talks about how extending the qualifying period for unfair dismissal makes it easier to hire people. It does not make it easier to hire people; it makes it easier to fire people. Does he accept that the actual outworking of increasing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal does not help employers to create a single job? All that it does is make it easier for them to fire people within two years.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member's argument does not make any sense; it does not stack up, and it does not wash. It is based on an illogical position: that giving employers more rights will somehow lead to a position where they will not abuse those rights. I do not accept his narrative or his arguments.”
“Excellent. I thank the Member for giving way because that is exactly the point that I want to ask him about. Can he please outline to the House how allowing employers to sack staff after up to two years without recourse for any rights for that member of staff leads to the creation of one more single job in our economy? It might well displace jobs and allow some staff to be sacked so, then, somebody else can get that job, but it does not create a new job. You are talking about people wanting or needing to emigrate for employment. They will not stay if they have to get a zero-hours contract or if they face the prospect of being sacked at any stage within the next two years, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the reason for sacking them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We had considered that, but, unfortunately, due to the amendment being proposed at Consideration Stage, there was not enough time for the British Secretary of State to grant approval for its inclusion in the Bill, and I certainly did not want to do anything to jeopardise the passage of Minister Farry's flagship Employment Bill.”
“I am happy to discuss those issues with the Minister and, at this stage, am minded not to move the amendment. Hopefully, we will return at Further Consideration Stage with an amendment that meets the approval of the Assembly. Go raibh maith agat.”