REPORT ON THE EMPLOYMENT BILL

(NIA Bill 11/01)

SESSION 2002/2003 FIRST REPORT

Ordered by the Committee for Employment and Learning to be printed 26 September 2002
Report: 1/02R (Committee for Employment and Learning)

COMMITTEE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND LEARNING
TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE REPORT, MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE, AND WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE

The Committee for Employment and Learning is a Statutory Departmental Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Standing Orders 44 – 46 of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department for Employment and Learning and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has power:

• to consider and advise on Departmental budgets and annual plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
• to approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of relevant primary legislation;
• to call for persons and papers;
• to initiate inquiries and make reports; and
• to consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister for Employment and Learning.

The Committee is appointed at the start of every Assembly, and has power to send for persons and papers and records that are relevant to its inquiries.

The Committee has 11 members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of 5. The membership of the Committee at 26 September 2002 was:

Dr Esmond Birnie (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)

¹ Mrs Joan Carson replaced Rev Robert Coulter on 11 September 2000.
² Dr Ian Adamson replaced Mr Roy Beggs on 15 April 2002.
³ Mr Arthur Doherty replaced Mr Joe Byrne on 20 May 2002.
⁴ Mr David Hilditch replaced Mr William Hay on 27 May 2002.
⁵ Ms Michelle Gildernew replaced Mrs Mary Nelis on 1 July 2002.
⁶ Mr Barry McElduff replaced Mr John Kelly on 1 July 2002.
⁷ Mr Michael Coyle replaced Mr Arthur Doherty on 16 September 2002

The Department for Employment and Learning Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 received Royal Assent on 20 July 2001 and made provision for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to be renamed the Department for Employment and Learning. Accordingly, the Statutory Committee was renamed the Committee for Employment and Learning.

Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by the Stationery Office by order of the Committee. All publications of the Committee are posted on the Assembly’s website: (www.niassembly.gov.uk).

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk to the Committee for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland Assembly, Room 283, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX.

( (028) 9052 1272: Ê: (028) 9052 1433 : e-mail: cel@niassembly.gov.uk

Executive Summary

Purpose
Key Points

Introduction

Extension of the Committee Stage

Consideration of the Evidence on the Bill

Clause-by-clause Deliberation

Recommendations

Appendix 1: Minutes of Proceedings relating to the Report

Appendix 2: Minutes of Evidence

Federation of Small Businesses – 13 June 2002

NICICTU – 20 June 2002

DEL Officials – 27 June 2002

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland – 4 July 2002

DEL Officials – 5 September 2002

Committee clause-by-clause scrutiny – 12 September 2002

Appendix 3: Written Evidence submitted to the Committee

Federation of Small Businesses – 10 June 2002

NICICTU – 20 June 2002

Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment – 4 July 2002

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland – 4 July 2002

DEL response to questions raised by members – 11 July 2002

NICICTU recommendations for amendments – 13 August 2002

Federation of Small Businesses recommendations for amendments – 27 August 2002

Equality Commission recommendations for amendments – 30 August 2002

DEL pre-term births – 30 August 2002

DEL proposed amendments by the Minister at Consideration Stage – 4 September 2002

Equality Commission use of term ‘worker’ in legislation – 9 September 2002

DEL response to various issues by members – 12 September 2002

EMPLOYMENT BILL (NIA 11/01)

1. The purpose of this Report is to bring into the public domain the Committee for Employment and Learning’s consideration of the Employment Bill being sponsored by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). This Report aims to accurately portray the full and fair consideration that was brought to bear, by members of the Committee, in their deliberations on the Employment Bill during Committee Stage.

2. The Employment Bill was welcomed by the Committee for Employment and Learning in light of the provisions contained therein:

• Extension of maternity leave.
• New rights on adoption and paternity leave and pay.
• Obligation on employers to seriously consider requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.

3. Members sought a balanced range of views as part of their deliberations on the Employment Bill and requested evidence from a number of organisations as well as from officials from DEL. Requests for written submissions were also requested from the following Assembly Committees;

• Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment
• Committee for Finance and Personnel
• Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety
• Committee for Social Development

4. The views of the impact on employers, of provisions in the Employment Bill, were sought from the Federation of Small Businesses while the likely impact for ‘employees’ was sought from the Northern Ireland Committee - Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Issues arising from these two evidence sessions held in Parliament Buildings, as well as members’ own concerns, were raised with departmental officials who were invited to give evidence to the Committee on the Employment Bill. The views of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland were also sought in order to determine what potential equality and discriminatory issues that might arise from this legislation.

5. A recurring point of issue amongst members was in regard to the widening of eligibility, so that as many people as possible could gain access to the benefits provided for in the Employment Bill. Possible amendments considered by members included the extension of the right to request flexible working to be extended to those with other caring responsibilities, such as elderly parents, as well as the removal of the age barrier of six years, above which working parents of children would not be permitted to request flexible working hours from their employers. Similarly, consideration was given to removing the age restriction (18) on the right to request flexible working by parents of disabled children.

6. During their consideration of the Employment Bill, some members of the Committee did see positive merit in an amendment of the definition of those who could benefit from the enhanced rights included in the Bill. This was agreed in principle by suggesting that ‘worker’ replace the word ‘employee’ where relevant in each clause and schedule of the legislation. This would result in a widening of the scope of the Bill, estimated (assuming certain statistical relations in Northern Ireland would be the same as the UK average) at an additional 5% more people who could be eligible for these benefits.

7. However, as a result of further evidence presented to the Committee, the view was taken that such a change, whatever its attractiveness or otherwise in principle, would not be practicable at this time. The Committee agreed that such changes raised a very real prospect of not only delaying the progress of the Bill but could indeed result in the Bill not receiving Royal Assent and thus denying a considerable number of the workforce from access to any of these new rights at the same time as their Great Britain counterparts.

8. The Committee did, however, affirm its intention to further pursue the matter of clarifying the legal status of ‘workers’ in the workforce and to debate widely on the employment rights that should be available to all categories that fall under this general term. The introduction of two policy documents by DEL, Employment Status in Relation to Statutory Employment Rights and EU Commission Proposal for a directive on Working Conditions for Temporary Agency Workers, were seen as areas where the Committee should make a full and detailed input into this wider discussion on the rights of ‘workers’. It was also agreed that a consistent and uniform definition across all legislation would be a more effective way forward and a major policy decision. Furthermore, a wider consultation was required on this major issue before a final decision is taken.

9. The purpose of this Report is to bring into the public domain the Committee for Employment and Learning’s consideration of the Employment Bill being sponsored by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). This Report aims to accurately portray the full and fair consideration that was brought to bear, by members of the Committee, in their deliberations on the Employment Bill during Committee Stage

10. The Employment Bill was referred to the Committee for Employment and Learning for consideration in accordance with Assembly Standing Order 31(1) on completion of the Second Stage of the Bill on 5th June 2002.

11. The Minister for Employment and Learning made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

12. The measures within the Northern Ireland (NI) Employment Bill mirror the working parents provisions within the Great Britain (GB) Employment Act 2002. The GB Employment Act received Royal Assent on 8th July 2002 and covered the main areas of paternity and adoption leave and pay, maternity leave and pay, flexible working, employment tribunal reform and resolving disputes between employers and employees.

13. In GB, a review of maternity and parental rights was launched in the early summer of 2000 and its terms of reference were to:

This review led to the publication of the Green Paper ‘Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice’ in December 2000 by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the subsequent consultation period continued until early March 2001. In light of the results arising from the consultation it was announced in the Chancellor’s Budget Statement on 7 March 2001 that extensions to maternity and parental rights would be provided and all measures were to be implemented from 2003. The DTI subsequently produced 3 framework documents in May 2001 for consultation on the new options for maternity, paternity and adoption leave and pay. They also commissioned a high-level taskforce to consider the introduction of flexible working arrangements for parents of young children. Proposals emerging from these exercises led to the shaping of the provisions included in the GB Employment Act 2002.

14. In Northern Ireland, DEL issued similar consultation exercises as those outlined above. This process also confirmed support for the introduction of new and additional rights to facilitate a greater choice and flexibility for parents between family and work commitments.

15. The NI Employment Bill includes:-

(i) The right to 2 weeks paid paternity leave around the time of birth or the placement of a child newly-placed for adoption. Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP) will be at the same standard rate as Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP).

(ii) Adoption leave for parents adopting a child newly placed with them. As far as practical, provisions for adoption leave will mirror provisions for maternity leave. Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP) will be for the same period of time as Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and will be paid at the same standard rate.

(iii) Amendments to existing legislation to improve maternity rights – the right to 26 weeks ordinary maternity leave (paid) and 26 weeks additional maternity leave (unpaid) to expectant mothers.

(iv) A duty on employers to seriously consider requests from parents of young children to work flexible hours.

16. Other related measures corresponding to Social Security provisions in the GB Employment Act, such as arrangements for revised maternity pay, will be taken forward by the Department for Social Development.

17. The provisions detailed in both the GB Employment Act 2002 and the NI Employment Bill are intended to come into force on 6 April 2003.

18. On 5 September 2002 the Committee agreed a motion to request that the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill should be extended to 18 October 2002 to ensure due and proper consideration in relation to the possible amendments to be made to the Bill. The Committee agreed the following motion seeking an extension to the Committee Stage of the Bill.

This motion was tabled on the understanding that the period of extension would only be used if absolutely necessary. Departmental officials had previously advised the Committee that the progress of the Employment Bill through the various stages in the Assembly, would need to comply with stringent deadlines to ensure that the legislation could come into effect on the required date.

19. Members were advised to consider the following suggested timetable for progress of the Bill in the Assembly subject to any decision to further extend the period of scrutiny of the Committee Stage:

• Consideration Stage of the Bill would need to take place in October 2002.
• The Bill would need to receive Royal Assent by early-January 2003 although it would be preferable if this took place in December 2002.

This timetable would enable the considerable number of Regulations arising from the Bill to be brought before the Assembly and approved by early March 2003 in advance of the proposed date for dissolution of the Assembly, on 21 March 2003. It was recognised by the Committee that all these stages needed to be met within the specified time periods to ensure that the provisions, as detailed in the Employment Bill, could come into effect on 6 April 2003 at the same time as the provisions of the GB Employment Act 2002.

20. The Committee had before it the Employment Bill (NIA 11/01) and the accompanying Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Committee was assisted during it’s consideration of the Employment Bill by a number of research papers prepared by the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Research and Library Services.

21. The Committee considered the Employment Bill on 6, 13, 20, 27 June 2002, 4 July 2002 and 3, 5, 12, 19 and 26 September 2002. Minutes of proceedings of Committee meetings on these dates are included in this Report.

22. At the meeting on 6 June 2002, members considered the responses received by DEL on the following public consultations related to the Employment Bill:

• Framework documents on the simplification of maternity leave, paternity leave and adoption leave and pay.
• Flexible working recommendations from the Work and Parents Taskforce.

Members agreed to take oral evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Northern Ireland Committee – Irish Congress of Trade Unions; the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and officials from DEL. These evidence sessions were held respectively on the 13, 20 and 27 June and 4 July. The views of the impact on employers, of provisions in the Employment Bill, were sought from the Federation of Small Businesses while the likely impact for ‘employees’ was sought from the Northern Ireland Committee - Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The views of the Equality Commission were also sought in order to determine what potential equality and discriminatory issues that might arise from this legislation. Minutes of Evidence from these meetings are included in a separate section in this Report.

23. Requests for written submissions were also requested from the organisations outlined above and the following Assembly Committees;

• Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment
• Committee for Finance and Personnel
• Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety
• Committee for Social Development

24. Written submissions on the Employment Bill were received from the Federation of Small Businesses (10 June 2002), the Northern Ireland Committee – Irish Congress of Trade Unions (20 June 2002), the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (4 July 2002) and the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (4 July 2002). These submissions are presented in a separate section in this Report along with follow-up responses.

25. Members also agreed to seek the views of interested groups and individuals on the provisions of the Employment Bill by placing a public notice with full details of the Committee Stage of the Bill on the Committee’s web page of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s website.

26. At the meeting on 3 September 2002 members were briefed by a DEL official in relation to a paper prepared by DEL (30 August 2002) on the rights emanating from the Employment Bill for parents of children, due to be born on 6 April 2003, who were born pre-term. The earliest expected date for the Regulations that implement the provisions of the Bill to come into operation would be early February 2003, assuming that the Bill received Royal Assent in December 2002. However, members were made aware that a ‘gap period’ potentially exists whereby mothers who are expected to give birth from the week beginning 6 April 2003 could actually give birth as soon as late-November 2002. In instances such as these, when a birth expected after 6 April 2003 occurs prior to the Regulations coming into operation, the parents would be excluded from the statutory entitlements included in the Bill.

27. In a subsequent written submission to the Committee, DEL (12 September 2002) outlined the options that they were currently pursuing in order to overcome this situation:

28. At the meeting on 5 September 2002 the Committee considered DEL’s letter of 4 September 2002 informing the Committee of the Minister’s decision to table two amendments to the Employment Bill at Consideration Stage:

29. Also at the meeting on 5 September 2002 the Committee debated the general principles of amendments to the Employment Bill. The Committee supported the principle of a proposed amendment by both the Northern Ireland Committee – Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland:

It was recognised by members that this proposed amendment would have a more inclusive impact on the Bill by widening the number of people who could potentially claim the statutory entitlements within this legislation. This increase was estimated (assuming certain statistical relations in Northern Ireland would be the same as the UK average) at an additional 5% more people who could be eligible for these benefits. The Committee debated the use of the term ‘workers’ in previous employment legislation and agreed to request further information from Assembly Research on the legal definitions of ‘workers’ that were available in relevant legislation. Members agreed that a discussion on the categories to be included in the term ‘workers’ should be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee when more information should be available on this matter. Members also directed the Clerk to seek further information from the Equality Commission on their definition of ‘workers’ as used in their written submission (30 August 2002) to the Committee.

30. Other possible areas of amendments were considered by members including the extension of the right to request flexible working to be extended to those with other caring responsibilities, such as elderly parents, as well as the removal of the age barrier of six years, above which working parents of children would not be permitted to request flexible working hours from their employers. Similarly, consideration was given to removing the age restriction (18) on the right to request flexible working by parents of disabled children. Proposed amendments in regard to removing the age barrier of six years and removing the age restriction (18) did not receive Committee support and thus fell. Members agreed that the right to request flexible working for those with other caring responsibilities would need to be addressed in the future. It was recognised that the Employment Bill was based on consultation relating to working parents and the Committee would not therefore consider amending the current legislation.

31. Departmental officials confirmed that an Equality Impact Assessment on the Employment Bill had been carried out in accordance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998). This assessment had concluded that there would be no adverse impact in relation to Section 75 categories. Departmental officials also confirmed that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had ratified the original draft of the Employment Bill.

32. Members also debated the general principle of amending the short title of the Bill to more accurately reflect the scope and purpose of this legislation. It was agreed to continue this discussion at the Committee meeting on 12 September 2002.

33. Members agreed that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should meet with the Minister to discuss the amendment agreed by the Committee, to change ‘employee’ to ‘worker’, in advance of the Committee meeting on 12 September 2002.

34. On 12 September 2002, members also discussed a further WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY the Equality Commission (9 September 2002) that outlined their reasons for supporting the change of ‘employee’ to ‘worker’ in the Bill.

35. Members also noted a further Assembly Research paper detailing a list of categories that might be included in any definition of ‘workers’, and how other legislation, both previous and current, would be impacted upon if the Committee agreed a proposed amendment to change ‘employee’ to ‘worker’ in the Employment Bill.

36. At the meeting on 12 September 2002 the Chairman informed the Committee that he had discussed the proposed amendment with the Minister for Employment and Learning, Mrs Carmel Hanna MLA, on Wednesday 11 September in Adelaide House. As a consequence of this meeting the Chairman expressed the view that that it would not be advisable, at this time, to adopt a wider definition to broaden the number of people eligible for the benefits outlined in the Employment Bill for the following reasons:

• If members were to propose amending the Bill to include the term ‘worker’ as opposed to ‘employee’ there would need to be consequential change in other legislation, in particular, both previous and current Social Security legislation sponsored by the Department for Social Development. Members were made aware that they faced a critical time shortage in this regard given the short time remaining to the life of this Assembly and also that a Social Security Bill was currently going through the Assembly with accelerated passage and that any amendments to this Bill would have to be tabled that afternoon.
• Secondly, members were made aware that an amendment to include the term ‘worker’ with the Employment Bill, some of whom did not pay National Insurance Contributions, may also require new legislation to implement a system to compensate employers, as they were currently compensated via the National Insurance scheme. Members were made aware that this would undoubtedly delay the approval of the Employment Bill and could in fact raise the very real risk of losing the Bill altogether.

37. The Chairman further stated the opinion that it would also not be prudent, at this time, to extend the scope of the Bill to include ‘workers’ as opposed to just ‘employees’ in regard to the right to request flexible working. This was a possibility, open to the Committee, given that it had neither financial impact on the National Exchequer nor impacted upon past or current legislation, as it was a new right being introduced. The Chairman outlined his personal view that to make such an amendment would create a marked divergence in the Bill. This imbalance would mean that on the one hand benefits in regard to paternity and adoption leave and pay and maternity leave would only be available to ‘employees’ while in contrast the right to request flexible working would be available to a broader group under the definition of ‘workers’.

38. Members were also made aware that DEL had recently issued two policy documents relating to ‘Employment Status in Relation to Statutory Employment Rights’ and the ‘European Union Commission’s proposal for a directive on Working Conditions for Temporary Agency Workers’. The Chairman outlined the view that the Committee should reserve judgement on the matter of ‘workers’ pending further consideration and response by the Committee to these consultations, this was agreed.

39. The Chairman further informed members that, during his meeting with the Minister on 11 September 2002, he had been told that provisions did exist in the Bill that would enable the broadening of persons eligible to receive the benefits detailed in this legislation if so required. This was also stated in the submission (12 September 2002) made by the Minister to the Committee which affirmed that:

40. This statement was qualified by Departmental officials later in the meeting, 12 September 2002, who informed members that, contrary to the Minister’s letter which was in front of the Committee, the Employment Bill did not in fact contain powers to extend employment rights through future subordinate legislation. Rather, this enabling power, to introduce subordinate legislate to broaden the groups of persons eligible for benefits outlined in the Bill, was contained in other primary legislation. Departmental officials clarified that the relevant primary legislation were the Employment Relations Order 1999 (Article 24) and the Social Security Bill currently going through the Assembly.

41. The Committee concluded it’s deliberations on the Employment Bill with a clause-by-clause scrutiny on 12 September 2002 when the parts of the Bill were formally agreed.

42. Clause 1 – Adoption Leave

43. Clause 2 – Paternity Leave

44. Clause 3 – Statutory Paternity Pay (SPP)

45. Clause 4 – Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP)

46. Clause 5 – Financial Arrangements

47. Clause 6 – Funding of Employers’ Liabilities

48. Clause 7 – Regulations about Payment

49. Clause 8 – Decisions and Appeals

50. Clause 9 – Power to Require Information

51. Clause 10 – Penalties: Failure to Comply

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

The question was put and the proposed amendment fell.

52. Clause 11 – Penalties: Fraud etc.

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

53. Clause 12 – Rights During and After Maternity Leave

54. Clause 13 – Flexible Working

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

55. Clause 14 – Regulations

56. Clause 15 – Amendments and Revocations

57. Clause 16 – Commencement

58. Clause 17 – Interpretation

59. Clause 18 – Short Title

60. Schedule 1 – Penalties: Procedures and Appeals

61. Schedule 2 – Amendments

62. Long Title

63. The Committee agreed that it would assist in creating a greater public understanding of the provisions included in the Bill if the short title was to be changed to the ‘Parental Employment Rights Act’. While this might deviate from practice at Westminster, it was felt by a majority of members that the Northern Ireland Assembly, in this instance, should depart from the Westminster convention of using short generic titles that did not really convey the scope of the legislation.

64. The Committee agreed a commitment to a full investigation into the rights and benefits to be afforded to ‘workers’ particularly in light of modern trends in the labour market whereby greater protection rights are being afforded to categories that fall within the definition of ‘employee’. Members agreed that there needed to be a consolidation in employment legislation, in particular, the use of ‘legally robust’ terminology in defining those categories of the workforce to whom the legal provisions apply. Further study into this matter would be shaped by the Committee’s input into the two consultation documents, referred to above, that had been recently issued by DEL. It was agreed that a consistent and uniform definition across all legislation would be a more effective way forward and a major policy decision. Furthermore, a wider consultation was required on this major issue before a final decision is taken.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr Arthur Doherty MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Ms Eileen Regan (Northern Ireland Assembly Research)

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA

Members were briefed by Northern Ireland Assembly Research on DEL’s Employment Bill. The briefing covered the following areas:

• key policy and legislative developments;
• relevant statistical data;
• a clause-by-clause review of the proposed Bill; and
• a comparative perspective.

Following the briefing, the following areas were debated:

• the absence of regional figures for recipients of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP);

• the exclusion of existing foster carers from the benefits contained in the Bill in relation to proposals associated with adoption;
• whether any restrictions had been imposed on the upper age limit of the adopted child;
• whether partners or co-habitees who adopt children were covered by the proposals and, if so, how this would be monitored;

Prof McWilliams stated that she may have to leave to attend another Committee meeting in order to make up a quorum.

• the possible confusion caused by the use of the term ‘he,’ if proposals were designed to cover both mothers and fathers;

• whether the legislation covered placements in relation to the adoption process and also the adoption of children from abroad;
• the importance of equality in the proposals for both employees and the self-employed;
• whether the self-employed, workers on fixed-term contracts, agency workers and those on employment schemes were within the scope of the proposed legislation;
• how the financial rights of employees would be addressed in cases of business failure;

• how the legislation affected seasonal workers, for example in the agricultural sector;
• the limited grounds for appeal, based on incorrect facts, when an employee was refused a request for flexible working;
• the potential disadvantages to rural employers where public transport may be insufficient to support flexible working patterns; and
• the lack of detail in the legalisation on employers’ obligations in respect of requests for flexible working.

Members noted that copies of all submissions to the public consultations undertaken by DEL were available in the Committee Office for members’ reference.

Members agreed to call the following witnesses in relation to the Committee’s consideration of the Employment Bill:

• the Federation of Small Businesses on Thursday 13 June 2002;
• the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on Thursday 20 June 2002;
• DEL officials on Thursday 27 June 2002; and
• the Equality Commission on Thursday 4 July 2002.

The Clerk was directed to obtain the recent report by the Federation of Small Businesses on ‘Lifting the Barriers to Growth in UK Small Businesses.’

Given that the proposals in the Employment Bill had already been the subject of public consultation by DEL, the Committee agreed not to place an advertisement in the local press inviting submissions on the proposed Bill. It was agreed to issue an invite via future press releases for comments to be forwarded for the Committee’s attention and also to use the Committee’s website.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr Arthur Doherty MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA

Members noted the Report by the Federation of Small Businesses ‘Lifting the Barriers to Growth in UK Small Businesses,’ and the written memoranda provided for the evidence session.

Members were briefed by Mr W Mitchell, Mr D Munster and Mr G Roberts from the Federation of Small Businesses. Following an introductory presentation, the following issues were debated with members:

• the issue of small businesses being used by the government as ‘unpaid tax collectors;’
• the disruption to small businesses caused by the increasing rights for employees to be absent from work;
• whether the Employment Bill may have potentially negative effects on recruitment;
• the negative impact of flexible working on the work-life balance of the remaining workers;
• whether the Bill should differentiate between large and small employers;
• the positive effects of past employment legislation on pay differentials between males and females and staff retention; and
• whether the financial compensation arrangements contained in the Bill were sufficient.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Michael Meehan

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr Arthur Doherty MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA

Members noted that the Employment Bill had been passed to the Committees for Finance and Personnel, Social Development and Enterprise, Trade and Investment for comment.

The Committee was briefed by Mr B Gourley, Ms A Hope and Mr L McBrinn on the Employment Bill. The following issues were highlighted during the introductory presentation:

• the need for the legislation to apply to all workers, as the current definition of ‘employees’ meant that the self-employed, temporary, casual and agency workers were excluded;’
• the need for effective enforcement of rights regarding statutory maternity pay and maternity leave;
• the small percentage of working women who could afford to benefit from the proposal to extend maternity leave;
• the fact that the qualifying service condition for statutory maternity pay discriminates against women who change jobs in the early stages of pregnancy and could therefore affect career enhancement;
• the need for further measures to encourage fathers to spend more time with their children;
• why the ‘sickness trigger’ for maternity leave and the service qualification for paternity leave should be abolished;
• the need for birth support rights for same sex parents to be included in the Bill;
• why the proposals did not include children adopted from outside Northern Ireland and all adoptive carers;
• why parents with children over 6 years old could not request flexible working; and
• the need for the legislation to cover those caring for elderly parents and relatives.
• Following the presentation, the following issues were debated with members:
• the potential effects of future legislation on current legislation containing stipulations on age limits;
• the need for a partnership between employers and employees regarding the new arrangements, with government having responsibility for measuring any adverse impact on employers;
• why there were no additional entitlements for the adoption of a disabled child;
• the fact that tribunals could only consider whether proper procedures were followed as opposed to the quality of the employer’s decision, when requests for flexible working were refused;
• the need for the leave entitlements in the legislation to be extended to carers, and not just the biological parents;
• why there was a service qualification requirement for paternity leave, when no such qualification was needed for maternity leave.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr Arthur Doherty MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA
Mrs Mary Nelis MLA

Mr R Gamble, Mr W Caldwell and Ms L Taylor from DEL, briefed the Committee on the Employment Bill. The following issues were debated with members:

• why existing foster carers who subsequently wished to adopt the foster child were excluded from the provisions;
• the monitoring arrangements in place to ensure that all criteria were satisfied;
• whether the same rights applied to children being adopted from abroad;
• the potentially adverse effects on employees remaining in the workplace;
• the compensation arrangements for small businesses;
• why the legislation covered ‘employees’ as opposed to ‘workers,’ and thus excluded key groups such as the self-employed;

• whether the legislation should provide for leave to be extended in special circumstances;
• why there was a service requirement for paternity leave when no such requirement was in place for maternity leave;

• DEL’s responsibility for issuing guidance to employers in relation to the provisions contained in the Bill;
• whether paternity pay was taxable;
• the arrangements in place to enforce compliance and the penalties for fraud;
• why carers for the elderly had been excluded from the arrangements for flexible working;
• the relative responsibilities of both employers and employees in relation to requests for flexible working;
• how tribunals would resolve cases involving requests for flexible working and how the costs of tribunals would be met;

• why flexible working requests should only be considered from parents with children under six years old;

• why legislation on fixed-term work had been delayed from July 2002 to October 2002; and

• whether the current title of the Bill accurately reflected its contents.

Officials stated that they would provide written answers to several areas raised during the briefing.

Members agreed the need for the Committee Stage to be completed on time if possible, given the amount of subordinate legislation to follow from the Employment Bill, which needed to be approved before the dissolution of the Assembly in March 2003

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA
Mr Barry McElduff MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Mr David Douglas

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr Arthur Doherty MLA
Ms Michelle Gildernew MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA

Members agreed that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman could, if necessary, seek an extension to the Committee stage of the Employment Bill, prior to the next Committee meeting.

Mrs J Harbinson, Prof B Fitzpatrick and Ms M McSorley from the Equality Commission, briefed the Committee on the Employment Bill. Members noted the Equality Commission’s written submission, which was tabled. The following issues were debated with members:

• the degree of detail that is absent from the Employment Bill and left to appear in subsequent regulations;
• why the legislation covered ‘employees’ as opposed to ‘workers,’ and thus excluded key groups such as the self-employed;
• why leave entitlements for employees who cared for the elderly had been excluded from the Employment Bill;
• the need for greater flexibility and equality in the provision of maternity/paternity leave;
• the potential administrative burden to small businesses in implementing the proposals contained in the Bill;

• the importance of guidance and support to employers in clarifying the implications to them arising from both the clauses of the Bill itself and subsequent regulations; and

• why flexible working requests should only be considered from parents with children under six years old.

Representatives from the Equality Commission agreed to forward any suggested amendments they might have on the Employment Bill to the Committee by the end of August 2002.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Ms Michelle Gildernew MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Barry McElduff MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Stephen Murphy
Mr Paul Stitt

Apologies: None

Members noted the proposed amendments to the Employment Bill which had been received over the summer recess from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NIC-ICTU); the Federation of Small Businesses and the Equality Commission.

The Chairman informed members that he had requested a research paper on the potential costs of several of these amendments and that this would be available for the next meeting.

Members noted the Minister’s response to queries raised with DEL officials during their evidence session with the Committee prior to the summer recess. Members also noted the five draft Statutory Rules from DEL which would stem from the finalised Employment Bill.

Members noted that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment had no comment to make on the Employment Bill.

It was agreed to meet on Thursday 5 September 2002, to debate the general principles of the Employment Bill, prior to undertaking a clause-by-clause reading of the Bill. At this meeting, members would also consider whether to seek an extension to the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill.

Mr W Caldwell from DEL briefed the Committee in relation to the rights emanating from the Employment Bill for parents of children, due to be born on 6 April 2003, who were born pre-term.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Ms Michelle Gildernew MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Mr David Douglas

Apologies: Mr Barry McElduff MLA

Members noted an Assembly Research paper detailing the potential implications of several amendments which had previously been considered by the Committee.

Mr R Gamble and Mr W Caldwell from the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) briefed members on two amendments which would be laid by the Minister at Consideration Stage. Officials stated that they would clarify, in writing, several issues raised by the Committee.

The Committee considered a motion to request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill. It was unanimously agreed:

‘That in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 18 October 2002 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill (NIA Bill 11/01).’

The Clerk was directed to lay the motion in the Business Office.

The Committee debated whether the scope of the Bill as it stood should be extended to include ‘workers’ as opposed to ‘employees’ and the usage of these terms in previous employment legislation, as well as their relationship to recent developments in the labour market.

It was proposed by Dr Birnie and seconded by Ms Gildernew:

The question was put and the amendment agreed as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 4.

Ayes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Dallat, Ms Gildernew and Prof McWilliams.

Noes: Mr Carrick, Mrs Carson, Mr Hilditch and Mr Hutchinson.

Abstentions: None.

It was agreed that a discussion of the categories to be included in the term ‘workers’ in the Committee’s agreed amendment should be deferred until the next meeting.

Members debated whether the right to request flexible working for parents with disabled children under 18 should be extended.

It was proposed by Mr Dallat and seconded by Ms Gildernew:

The question was put and the amendment fell as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes 3; Noes 4.

Ayes: Mr Dallat, Ms Gildernew and Prof McWilliams.

Noes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Carrick, and Mr Hutchinson.

Abstentions: Mrs Carson.

Members debated whether to extend the scope of the Bill to allow working parents of children over 6 years of age to request flexible working.

It was proposed by Ms Gildernew and seconded by Mr Dallat:

The question was put and the amendment fell as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes 3; Noes 5.

Ayes: Mr Dallat, Ms Gildernew and Prof McWilliams.

Noes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Carrick, Mr Hilditch and Mr Hutchinson.

Abstentions: None.

Members considered whether the right to request flexible working should be extended to workers with other caring responsibilities. Whilst it was agreed that this was an issue which would need to be addressed in the future, the Employment Bill was based on consultation relating to working parents and the Committee would not therefore consider amending the current legislation.

Departmental officials confirmed that the Equality Impact Assessment in relation to the Bill had concluded that there would be no adverse impact in relation to the Section 75 categories. Officials also confirmed that the Bill, as drafted, had been ratified by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

Members debated whether the current short title of the Bill adequately reflected the scope and purpose of the Bill and agreed to continue their deliberations on this matter at the next meeting.

The Clerk was directed to seek further information from the Equality Commission on their definition of ‘workers’ as used in their written memorandum sent to the Committee.

Members agreed to request further information from Assembly Research on the definitions of ‘workers’ used in similar previous legislation and, in particular, whether these included the self-employed.

Members agreed that the clause-by-clause reading of the Bill would be undertaken at the next meeting.

It was agreed that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman should seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss the amendment agreed by the Committee.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Dr Ian Adamson MLA
Ms Michelle Gildernew MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Barry McElduff MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Mr David Douglas

Apologies: Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr John Dallat MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA

Members noted further information from the Equality Commission with regard to the definition of the term ‘worker’ in employment legislation.

Members noted a further Assembly Research paper detailing a list of categories which might be included in any definition of ‘workers,’ and outlining the impact of potential amendments to the Employment Bill on previous and parallel legislation.

The Chairman stated that at his recent meeting with the Minister, she had outlined several difficulties with the Committee’s proposal to extend the scope of the Employment Bill from ‘employees’ to ‘workers.’ Such an amendment, to extend the range of persons eligible for social security benefits, would require consequential amendments to supporting legislation within the remit of the Department for Social Development. An amendment to include ‘workers,’ some of whom did not pay National Insurance Contributions may also require new legislation to implement a system to compensate employers, as they were currently compensated via the National Insurance scheme. The Minister had again expressed her concerns at the risks attached to delaying the passage of the Bill through the Assembly, in that the necessary supporting subordinate legislation would also be delayed. She had also stated that the Employment Bill included powers to extend the scope of the legislation, if required, in the future and, indeed, her Department had currently put out to consultation two policy documents relating to ‘Employment Status in Relation to Statutory Employment Rights’ and the ‘European Union Commission’s proposal for a directive on Working Conditions for Temporary Agency Workers’ which would allow views to be assimilated in these areas.

The Chairman further stated that widening the scope of the Bill from ‘employees’ to ‘workers’ might also require amendment to the Social Security Bill which was currently being considered by the Assembly under accelerated passage. He considered that it was not practical to proceed with widening the scope of the Bill from ‘employees’ to ‘workers,’ but that the Committee’s Report should highlight the fact that such a proposal would be considered in the future and the Committee would investigate this area further in its deliberations on the consultation documents detailed above.

The Chairman also stated his opinion that the Committee should not extend the scope of the Bill relating to the right to request flexible working as, although this was a new right which would not have consequential effects on existing legislation, to do so would create a contrast in the Bill and such issues could also be considered in the current consultations, which could lead to better and more consistent legislation and associated definitions.

Mr McElduff enquired about the possibility of delaying the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill to enable members to seek further advice on the reported developments. The majority agreed that, as individual members could table amendments to the Bill as it proceeded through the Assembly, and given the general shortage in time, the Committee should continue with its deliberations to ensure early completion of the Committee Stage. Ms Gildernew sought and received the Chairman’s assurance that this would be fully documented in the draft Committee Report on the Bill which needed to be agreed by the Committee before printing.

The Chairman welcomed Mr R Gamble and Mr W Caldwell from the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to assist members in their scrutiny of the Bill.

The Committee commenced formal clause-by-clause consideration of the Employment Bill.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

Mr Gamble informed members that, contrary to the Minster’s letter which was in front of the Committee, the Employment Bill did not contain power to extend employment rights via subordinate legislation in the future. This enabling power was, however, contained in other primary legislation.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

The question was put and the proposed amendment fell as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes: 1; Noes: 4.

Ayes: Mr McElduff.

Noes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Carrick, and Mr Hilditch.

Abstentions: None.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

The question was put and the proposed amendment fell as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes: 1; Noes: 4.

Ayes: Mr McElduff.

Noes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Carrick, and Mr Hilditch.

Abstentions: None.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

It was proposed by Mr McElduff:

The question was put and the proposed amendment fell as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes: 1; Noes: 4.

Ayes: Mr McElduff.

Noes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie, Mr Carrick, and Mr Hilditch.

Abstentions: None.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

It was proposed by Mr McElduff and seconded by Dr Birnie:

The question was put and the amendment agreed as detailed below.

The Committee divided: Ayes: 3; Noes: 2.

Ayes: Dr Adamson, Dr Birnie and Mr McElduff.

Noes: Mr Carrick and Mr Hilditch.

Abstentions: None.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The question was put:

The question was agreed to.

The Clerk was directed to produce a draft Report for consideration at next week’s meeting.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Present: Dr Esmond Birnie MLA (Chairman)
Mr Mervyn Carrick MLA (Deputy Chairman)
Mrs Joan Carson MLA
Mr Michael Coyle MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Roger Hutchinson MLA
Mr Barry McElduff MLA
Prof Monica McWilliams MLA

In Attendance: Dr Andrew Peoples
Mr Colin Jones
Mr Paul Stitt
Mr John McVey (Northern Ireland Assembly Research)

Apologies: Mr John Dallat MLA
Ms Michelle Gildernew MLA

The Chairman informed members that the minutes of evidence of last week’s meeting were not yet available from Hansard and that the Committee would consider these at the next meeting.

Members agreed to forward copies of the Committee’s Report on the Employment Bill to all witnesses and to the press, embargoed until the Bill reached Consideration Stage in the Assembly. It was also agreed that a copy should be forwarded to the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Mr McElduff agreed to second the proposal that the draft minutes of the meeting on 12 September 2002 be approved.

Members carried out the final reading of their Report on the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill.

Members authorised the Clerk to make any minor editorial changes necessary during proofing of the Report.

DR ESMOND BIRNIE MLA
Chairman, Committee for Employment and Learning

Thursday 13 June 2002

Dr Birnie (Chairperson)
Mr Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr Adamson
Mr Dallat
Mr A Doherty
Mr Hilditch
Mr R Hutchinson
Ms McWilliams
Mrs Nelis

Mr D Munster )
Mr W Mitchell ) Federation of Small Businesses
Mr G Roberts )

1.

Ms McWilliams: There is currently another meeting, that of the Ad Hoc Committee on access to justice. That may or may not be quorate, and I apologise in advance if I have to go in and out for that reason.

2.

The Chairperson: I welcome the delegation from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Mr David Munster, Mr Wilfred Mitchell and Mr Glyn Roberts. Thank you for coming. This is the first formal evidence session in the Committee Stage of the Employment Bill. I thank you for the written evidence which you supplied and the document which you launched recently. Perhaps you could make a short statement before taking questions.

3.

Mr Mitchell: Do you want us to run through what we submitted?

4.

The Chairperson: Whatever you feel happy with is fine.

5.

Mr Mitchell: The FSB welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s consideration of the Employment Bill. We are the largest group representing the interests of the self-employed and those who direct businesses in Northern Ireland. The federation has 170,000 members nationally, of which almost 3,000 are based in Northern Ireland. It is run by businesspeople for businesspeople, and is funded solely by member subscriptions. The membership in Northern Ireland elects a policy committee, which is supported by a full-time policy officer. We also run a full-time press and parliamentary office.

6.

The FSB recognises and welcomes the positive aspects of the Bill. However, it has many concerns about how it will affect the small business community, which is the backbone of Northern Ireland’s economy. We are disappointed that the Bill does not distinguish between large and small employers. We are gravely concerned that it does not address the inequalities faced by the self-employed.

7.

There are many ambiguities in the Bill. For example, it does not address how employers can claim back administration costs. Implementing costly regulations on the large proportion of the business community which already recognises and offers flexible working policies over and above the current statutory standards would not be in the best interests of employers or employees in Northern Ireland.

8.

For the purposes of the submission we shall concentrate on the three areas of greatest importance to the small business community: flexible working; simplification advice and guidance; and managing absences.

9.

Mr Roberts: The legislation is intended to give working parents with children under six or disabled children under 18 who have been with their companies for a minimum of six months the right to make written requests for flexible working. Companies can reject the requests, but they must set out a considered business case for doing so. Employees will be able to seek redress from an employment tribunal if they feel that their requests have not been taken seriously. Tribunals will be able to rule only on procedures, facts, and whether a business case has been made.

10.

If employers follow correct procedure, they are unlikely to see their decisions overturned by the tribunal. Nevertheless, the consequence of the proposal is likely to be an increase in employment tribunal applications from employees who feel that their employer has failed to give adequate consideration to their request to work part-time. The measure’s implications are directly contrary to the Bill’s objective of reducing the number of employment tribunal applications.

11.

We recommend that the resources be geared to educating and supporting businesses which do not already have flexible working policies or the in-house expertise required to implement them. There should be a clear focus on helping those businesses which do not recognise the competitive benefits of doing so.

12.

In a large company, cover can easily be arranged, often from within the same department, and if a temporary worker is needed, that can easily be afforded. However, for a small business with, for example, four employees, a member of staff on leave represents 25% of the workforce. It should be recognised that in small firms, each worker plays a key role, one that often requires specialist training. In fact, one worker may constitute a whole department. If a key worker is absent, the owner of the business will not only have to take on cover, but spend time training that temporary employee.

13.

The simplification of current regulations to reduce the complexity of red tape would be welcomed by the business community, since a one-off cost must be more economical than introducing systems with continual costs to both the Northern Ireland economy and the business community. On advice and guidance, we should like to see suggested options available with targeted distribution of flowcharts, maternity leave, contracts and guidance setting out the rights and responsibilities to the business which will benefit from it.

14.

For much of the legislation, the implications of introduction will depend on the payment mechanisms adopted. The worry is that, if Government continues to regulate, the burden of administrative costs on the business community will become unbearable. In the context of the Bill, we feel that payment mechanisms are not the key area for focus. We wish to stress that small businesses strongly resent being unpaid tax-collectors. The whole issue of tax collection by small businesses must be addressed by Government.

15.

Our final point concerns managing absences. That is the key to moving successfully towards a more flexible working culture. Advice and guidance on managing absences must focus on supporting the education of businesses so that they develop best practice in the workplace, as well as examining relationships with employment services and private recruitment agencies. If the Department wishes to support the development of flexible working, it must allow individual businesses the opportunity to explore flexible working options which fit the employee but not the company.

16.

If implemented, the legislation would restrict employees’ opportunities for flexible arrangements and restrict business development by imposing impractical routines on employers and reducing profits, as well as inflicting unnecessary regulatory costs. The Committee will be aware of the amount of regulation and red tape with which businesses, particularly small businesses, must work; resentment would build. One thing that contradicts the whole idea of the Bill is that it will encourage recruitment discrimination against men and women of childbearing age. It will also discourage the business community from positively embracing the culture of work-life balance.

17.

Mr Munster is our spokesman on this area and deals with the issue as a small businessperson with 26 employees. He can discuss the other day-to-day problems which businesses will face because of the Bill.

18.

Mr Carrick: Small businesses are the unpaid collectors of National Insurance, tax, statutory maternity benefit, statutory sick pay and student loan repayments — the list is long and looks set to grow. How far can small businesses go before the straw that breaks the camel’s back?

19.

Mr Munster: That will obviously differ from one business to another. In my experience, a great deal of my time is taken up with ensuring that we comply with all the regulations. My primary focus is to ensure that we sell enough to make sufficient profit to cover wages and the other costs of running the business. I am spending an increasing amount of time dealing with such issues simply to ensure that I am on the right side of the law. That is not productive time, and it will ultimately affect profitability.

20.

It will vary from business to business. I am concerned about us becoming uncompetitive vis-à-vis businesses in the Republic. I am also concerned that I might become uncompetitive against national companies in the same line as ourselves.

21.

Mr Carrick: In the context of administering the Employment Bill proposals, have you any suggestions as to how the Government could deal with that issue without imposing a burden? In the past, the compensation paid to small businesses has been paltry.

22.

Mr Munster: Take paternity pay, for example. When I had children I was an employee, and I wanted to have time off. I used part of my annual leave, and there was no administrative burden on the company whatsoever. I do not see any need to introduce legislation to ensure that the employee gets paid that, no matter how it is done, ends up being complex, meaning the money must be claimed back through National Insurance. It all adds to the burden. The other option, which we refer to in our paper, is a mechanism whereby the employer is compensated for that extra work. My preference would be for simplicity.

23.

Mr Mitchell: Nationally, the federation does not want to be compensated, since there is an attendant burden of responsibility, and we do not know where that would end. We should rather that the Government took ownership of the matter.

24.

Mr R Hutchinson: We all know the importance of small businesses in Northern Ireland. They employ a large number of people. In the federation, what percentage of businesses have some kind of inbuilt structure for such matters as maternity leave and flexible working hours?

25.

It has been suggested that additional maternity leave should not depend on a woman fulfilling a qualifying service condition. If that were introduced, how would it impact on small businesses?

26.

Mr Munster: You asked whether we have systems in place. I suppose that we all have to deal with such things when they arise, but it is very difficult to have a mechanism in place for every eventuality when you employ a small number of people. In general, there will not be a system as such. We simply have to examine the rules and regulations and deal with them at the time.

27.

On the issue of employees who have not served the existing qualifying period for extended maternity leave, we are concerned about people’s increasing right to be absent from work, rather than, in this particular case, the cost of administering it. A key person in my business has taken maternity leave, and I have had to bring in a temporary worker — it must by law be a temporary worker, because you have to keep the job open. When it is a key position, that person has to be trained. It is very difficult to get a temporary worker capable of doing such a key job. The person was in charge of my purchase ledger. There was a disaster when we were paying suppliers whom we should not have been paying, and not paying others whom we should have.

28.

Mr R Hutchinson: You had never done that before.

29.

Mr Munster: You can understand that being of concern to me. That is a cost. The Bill contains an analysis of the actual cost of paying out the money. The cost is not the main issue, however — it is the disruption caused by people being away from the business.

30.

Mr R Hutchinson: Will some businesses decide that it is not worth the hassle and cut their losses? Will it be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?

31.

Mr Munster: It is more likely that people will make a negative decision on whether to recruit, where otherwise they would have made a positive decision.

32.

Mr Hilditch: In relation to the impact on colleagues and fellow workers who remain in the workplace, in your own case you envisaged agency workers being brought in. Others may not be able to afford such a luxury, and that may cause stress to the remaining workforce, at which point sickness will kick in. That is a concern.

33.

Mr Munster: Mr Roberts made a point on work-life balance. Flexible working hours are designed to enhance that. However, the stress and strain which it causes to other employees affects their work-life balance, since they are trying to make the business work when it is understaffed.

34.

Mr Hilditch: It therefore imposes a practical and financial burden.

35.

Mr Munster: Unlike a football team, businesses cannot carry an extra 22 people from whom they pick a team of 11. The people required to run the business — and no more — must be employed, and any absence puts a strain on the remaining workers. We are talking about legislating for additional absence, and that will increase the strain.

36.

Mr Hilditch: The compensation factor might kick into the argument if an extra person were brought in.

37.

Mr Munster: If a person is to be absent only for a relatively short period of time, it is not practical to bring in and train someone. It would be worthwhile only if someone were off for a longer period. The difficulty with maternity regulations as they stand is that it is not known until after the baby is born if the employee is coming back at all.

38.

Dr Adamson: I have worked a rota system for most of my life as a medical doctor. On one occasion I worked for six months on a one-on-one rota, which sounds strange, but people were sick or on maternity leave — or simply left the country during the latter part of the troubles.

39.

The proposed legislation gives some people with caring responsibilities the right to request flexible working, but not others, such as parents with disabled offspring over 18 and those caring for elderly or sick parents. Do you consider that discriminatory, especially for small businesses?

40.

Mr Munster: The impact on small businesses will be greater than that on larger ones, where there is an ability to cover absences. Whether the proposals discriminate against other groups of people who might make a valid case for taking time off work is not at issue. My concern is that we keep in mind a new group of people for whom we wish to provide. There have been test cases in relation to equality, which have established that either parent can have time off if a child is sick. Many rules already exist, and any additional regulations make the situation difficult. As employers, we are not unreasonable in helping people or allowing them time off, but there is no protection for the business — the legislation and the protection is directed at employees’ interests. If someone is to be away from the business, it might mean losing a new contract. There is no recourse for the business in that case.

41.

Mr Munster: That is where the imbalance lies.

42.

Mr Dallat: When this Employment Bill was debated in the Assembly, I expressed many of the concerns of small businesses — and of course you know my position. I attended the launch of those documents in the Odyssey. I am concerned at certain things which have been said today. Given the abuses against employees on the part of certain of your larger rivals, is a proper Employment Bill not absolutely necessary to protect them against the appalling conditions under which they have had to work?

43.

Mr Munster: Are you speaking historically?

44.

Mr Dallat: I am not going back very far. I speak of some of the recent arrivals, whom I do not wish to name.

45.

Mr Mitchell: We have stated in this document that there should be a difference —

46.

Mr Dallat: They are not members of your federation.

47.

Mr Munster: Such things impact on small employers quite differently from how they impact on large employers. We are not in any way against having some kind of protection mechanism to ensure that those employees are treated fairly. We are concerned about over-regulation and feel there is already too much. All we are doing is making that worse.

48.

Mr Dallat: We have recently heard evidence from employers — many of them small businesses — about their difficulty recruiting. To attract people into the small businesses which you represent, is it not important that they have the best possible working conditions, particularly regarding maternity leave? I was shocked to hear that some members might not recruit women of childbearing age out of fear that they would have a baby. As a mere man, that really —

49.

Mr Munster: You are misinterpreting that remark slightly. The matter does not concern members of the FSB exclusively. It can have the exact opposite effect to that which you desire. I am being devil’s advocate here, and I stress that I am not talking about myself or any member of the federation. However, if an employer has a choice between two candidates — one not long married and another slightly older — that might be in the back of his mind. I am pointing out the fact to you rather than suggesting that we should do it.

50.

Mr Dallat: I am asking these questions for my own benefit. You said that you wished to remain competitive against businesses in the Republic. This legislation is all inspired by European law. Is there any evidence to suggest that businesses of similar size in the Republic are not playing the game properly, or that the jurisdiction has no such legislation?

51.

Mr Roberts: That is not a question on which I could provide you with evidence. I was merely flagging up our need to remain competitive. We must examine the experiences of our colleagues in the Small Firms’ Association and other small business organisations in the Republic. If the Committee were interested, we could provide the evidence in written form.

52.

Mr Dallat: You are giving evidence to this Committee now, and one assumes that you have done your research.

53.

Mr Roberts: It is not possible for us to know the exact legislative situation in the Republic. We have considerable difficulty keeping track of this Assembly, never mind the Oireachtas.

54.

Mr Dallat: Perhaps enough has been said on the issue. Ultimately, we surely want an Employment Bill which affords employees protection against the rogues, of which there are plenty — not the fine, honourable members of your federation. I know from personal experience that some people believe that they are still in Victorian times, treating employees as they please. The Bill is necessary. However, of the criteria, only three ask for guarantees.

55.

Mr Munster: As I said in my point about maternity leave, the FSB is not convinced that extra regulation is needed in those areas. Mr Dallat said that people have difficulty trading. Therefore, if employers want to retain good employees in the competitive employment marketplace, they will treat them fairly, without regulation.

56.

Mr Dallat: I am not suggesting that men are the rogues in that area. Last night, three young students came to me. They had been unable to attend college for several weeks, and because it is the end of term they were asked to go to college for an extra day. Their employer, who is a woman, sacked them. Therefore, among the employers are people who abuse employees.

57.

Mr Roberts: The FSB is not completely opposed to the Employment Bill. There are details in the areas it would like to consider which, in its experience, represent its 3,000 members. The FSB urges all employers to respect their employees. The FSB employs 130 staff nationally; its 3,000 members in Northern Ireland employ hundreds of thousands more. Therefore, the FSB encourages businesses to follow good practice, stay within the law and ensure that their employees are given every protection under it.

58.

Mr A Doherty: I am a new member of the Committee and inexperienced in this subject. In your submission you expressed disappointment that the Bill does not distinguish between large and small firms. There is a vast gulf in the scale of the problems faced by a firm that employs up to 10 people and a large multinational. Is there a clear dividing line between what constitutes a large firm and what constitutes a small firm? Is it realistic to think that the Bill could make a fine distinction between the two? Could there be different legislation for a firm which has 1,000 employees; one which employs 100 people; and a self-employed businessman?

59.

Mr Munster: There is scope, without being too complex, to determine what would affect businesses with different numbers of employees. However, the impact on a small business is proportionately higher, and the needs and concerns of small businesses are not taken into account. Small businesses are treated in the same way as those which employ more than 1,000 staff.

60.

Mr Mitchell: The FSB accepts membership from businesses with up to 150 employees, which seems quite large. However, in Europe and the UK, 97% of businesses employ fewer than 10 people. The FSB deals with new starts employing one or two people. It wishes to provide reasonable treatment so that an entrepreneur, who is not an expert in working with employees, will be encouraged to employ people. We do not want entrepreneurs to receive a raft of regulations that they read and decide that they are not interested. For example, if a young electronic engineer thinks of an idea and wants to manufacture a product, he must employ people. The FSB wishes to encourage that.

61.

Ms McWilliams: I want you to take my questions in good spirit. If I went for a job in your company, would you think that I was a woman of childbearing age?

62.

Mr Munster: It is not a case of being of childbearing age; it is a case of whether you are likely to have children.

63.

Ms McWilliams: How do you make that judgement?

64.

Mr Munster: I am not suggesting that a judgement should be made.

65.

Ms McWilliams: I noted your words "encourage recruitment discrimination against men and women". I will deal with the women first.

66.

Mr Mitchell: ‘Time’ magazine has stated that a certain age group is likely to be infertile.

67.

Ms McWilliams: I know all about that.

68.

Mr Mitchell: A medical position has been stated.

69.

Ms McWilliams: What is it?

70.

Mr Mitchell: ‘Time’ magazine said that 90% of women over the age of 42 would have infertile or defective eggs.

71.

Ms McWilliams: So you would make that judgement?

72.

Mr Mitchell: No, that is what ‘Time’ magazine said.

73.

Ms McWilliams: What about men? Would Dr Adamson be a man of childbearing age?

74.

Mr Dallat: Oh yes.

75.

Mr Mitchell: Fertility also drops off with men according to ‘Time’ magazine.

76.

Ms McWilliams: Do you see the point that I am making? There is variation. You make the point about men of childbearing age and then you reflect on women of childbearing age. There is a big difference when you consider men of childbearing age. The population shrinks further when you refer to women, and it shrinks even further when you refer to people being of high fertility.

77.

I like your statement that employers deal very fairly. That was the view even before legislation was introduced and the reason why it was introduced. The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and Equal Pay Act 1970 were introduced, and I accept that they have probably increased the Regulation burden on you. However, has that legislation benefited the labour market?

78.

Mr Munster: Are you asking whether it has increased the opportunities for women?

79.

Ms McWilliams: I am thinking of issues such as equal pay for work of equal value.

80.

Mr Munster: The statistics show that there is still a gap between what women and men earn on average, but the gap has narrowed. That would suggest that the legislation has benefited women. However, people are becoming more enlightened and aware of the fact that women are capable of doing just as good a job as men, and that is more likely to have had an effect.

81.

Ms McWilliams: The legislation was introduced because there was such a variation in the way people were being treated. Basic guidelines or Regulations were introduced to deal with that. Comparative studies show that the measures have retained the labour force, there is a higher level of loyalty in the labour force, and, in some instances, productivity may have increased.

82.

Mr Munster: That is as a result of retaining more women in the workplace.

83.

We are focusing on legislation that gives people rights to more time off work, as opposed to more time in work. We are focusing on the difficulties that having more time away from the job would cause to a business, rather than on whether women should have equal rights to men.

84.

Ms McWilliams: I accept that. However, would you not anticipate that women might stay longer instead of dropping in and dropping out? With the same employee from start to finish, you would save on training, recruitment and advertising costs. The turnover of staff would not be so high — people would not drop out and not come back, and the situation where those who had shorter maternity leave took time off on sick leave, or did not return at all, could be avoided. Some of the research suggests that it would be beneficial to introduce the proposed measures.

85.

Mr Mitchell: Did your research show whether that applied to a large company or small company?

86.

Ms McWilliams: It suggests both. Obviously, the larger companies can cover matters on a corporate basis. Your argument is that the provisions would result in an extra administrative burden. That is your difficulty, rather than the costs involved, because under the legislation the costs would be recouped.

87.

Mr Munster: It is the administrative burden, and the fact that administering the provisions means being diverted from what you are in business to do. There is also the disruption caused by people not being at work when you need them to be.

88.

Ms McWilliams: Yes, but if they were to give up completely and not come back, you would have a higher turnover — or you would go down the road of employing men only.

89.

Mr Munster: Because of the extended right to come back to work — there is no obligation, for practical reasons, for an employee to make that decision right away — it is extremely difficult to cover a position knowing that you will be bringing someone in on a temporary basis. You have, by law, to keep the job open for the person going off on maternity leave. In that sense, it would be preferable if the individual simply left, because you could then recruit someone to do the job on a permanent basis.

90.

Ms McWilliams: But that is not what is being introduced in this legislation. Those provisions are already in place, so we cannot go back and change them.

91.

Mr Munster: I know that; I just do not want to make the situation worse.

92.

Ms McWilliams: If you bring someone in on a temporary basis, you still have your problem. All that happens is that that person would stay longer when you give extended maternity leave. That might even defeat your own argument.

93.

Mr Munster: I do not think so. If the temporary person were not doing the job in the way that the permanent employee would did it — which was the experience that I had — it would be a potentially disastrous situation.

94.

Ms McWilliams: You had a bad experience, but can you envisage circumstances where you would not have such a bad experience? Those provisions are already in legislation.

95.

Mr Munster: It very much depends on the position held by the employee going off on maternity leave. The legislation obviously does not take account of that aspect, but if the job can be done by a vast number of people and does not require a great deal of training or knowledge about a company’s needs, then you could bring someone in on a temporary basis. However, if someone is doing a key job and they are away from that job, it could potentially put a company out of business. The smaller the business, the greater the extent to which that would apply.

96.

Ms McWilliams: What worries me is that you are making an argument against paying maternity pay or giving maternity leave at all.

97.

Mr Munster: I am making an argument against making matters more difficult for businesses than they currently are. I am not arguing against maternity leave. People obviously have to have maternity leave, and they have to have protection from being discriminated against because they have a baby. I am simply arguing against making the situation worse.

98.

Mr Roberts: I recognise the points that Prof McWilliams has made. As a business organisation, we work very closely with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; we are part of the bill of rights consortium and are involved in the debate about a bill of rights; and we are playing a full role with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. We want to be part of the solution to this problem. We are simply giving the collective view of almost 3,000 small businesses in Northern Ireland. We make a huge contribution to the economy, and the Northern Ireland economy is a small-business economy. We are bringing forward views that are based on practical experiences, particularly those of business people working in smaller businesses.

99.

We want to have the Employment Bill. There are parts that we would like to see changed, but, as we said in our submission, we welcome the spirit of the Bill. I am sure that everyone here today wants to see the Northern Ireland small business sector flourishing, developing and contributing to the economy. They would want it to continue to contribute to the Exchequer through income tax, VAT and so on — all the areas where we have contributed throughout the difficulties of the past 30 years. We are a positive and progressive organisation, and we want to ensure that matters will work in practice.

100.

Mrs Nelis: I was going to say that you are very welcome, but, after listening to what you have said, I am not too sure whether you are very welcome or not. At the Second Stage of the Bill in the Assembly last week, practically every member of the Committee expressed concern that the Bill did not clarify sufficiently the distinction between small and large businesses and that there needed to be some flexibility. We all shared those concerns.

101.

In saying that, I must remind you that this is a parity Bill from Westminster. It is not terribly enlightening or supportive of women’s rights to work and have children. The Bill concerns business. The Bill is really about the retention of working parents in the market, and the introduction of this legislation will help that. The Bill is not so much concerned with the rights of women to hold down jobs and have their babies or whether they have, as you described, not-so-important jobs or very important jobs.

102.

I cannot believe that in this day and age you said that you were a bit worried about the disruption that a women having a baby might cause to your business and that you would prefer there to be no absences. Does that mean that, as Ms McWilliams said, you do not want to employ women who might potentially have a baby, or do you want them to have the baby on the premises? I thought that we had left that sort of attitude behind. Do you prefer to employ women who will give you a guarantee, perhaps in writing, that they will not have children? That is what is coming across from you. We must put that out of the way.

103.

I want to give some statistics. Approximately —

104.

The Chairperson: Could you be brief, Mrs Nelis? Do you have a question on the Bill?

105.

Mrs Nelis: With respect, Mr Chairperson, you did not interrupt anyone else so do not interrupt me.

106.

The Chairperson: I also told Roger Hutchinson to be brief, and I was about to tell Monica McWilliams the same.

107.

Mrs Nelis: I want to put the issue into context. Thirty per cent of mothers in the North of Ireland fail to return to employment after maternity leave. Seven thousand women do not return because they are not welcome back and are not given guarantees that their job will be there. They will be doing exactly what you said. Another 80% of economically inactive women do not want a job; their reason is that they want to have a family and look after a home. They would like to have a job, but they need the co-operation of employers to be able to do so.

108.

The Bill is giving them some measure of co-operation. It asks you, as employers, to co-operate in allowing women to be economically active and to have, and be able to look after, a family. That is really what the Bill is about. Can you tell me what legislative flexibility we can introduce to the Bill, given that you have administrative concerns? Tell us about your proposals to overcome your concerns, and we will try to introduce a clause to deal with those.

109.

The Bill aims to enhance your business by allowing women to have their rightful place in the market. It is about allowing parents their rightful entitlement to maternity and paternity leave and allowing them to negotiate with you.

110.

If I were a smart business person and wanted to run a successful business, I would be delighted if an employee said that they had children under six years old, for example, or were looking after an older person but that they valued being in my employment and wanted to come to some arrangement with me so that they could do their work efficiently but also meet their responsibilities at home. That is what the Bill is about.

111.

Mr Munster: I employ quite a number of women who have been off work to have babies and who have asked me if they could work part-time. Where possible, I have agreed to that. I did so without any legislation because it made sound business sense. Our argument today is not that it is not good to encourage people back into jobs after they have had a baby. It is about shackling businesses with more Regulations that will discourage them and make it difficult for them to operate. That is our argument. Questions were asked, and I apologise if we did not answer them particularly well. However, you misunderstand me, and the federation’s position, if you think that we are asking to return to the Dark Ages. We are most certainly not.

112.

Mrs Nelis: You are misreading the Bill, if you will forgive me for saying so. You are misreading its contents. The Bill contains safeguards for businesses. It also contains clauses that will enable you to recoup administration costs in advance.

113.

Mr Roberts: It is by no means right to suggest that we are in favour of going backwards. We are here to try to make the situation work. We are not opposing the Employment Bill. We have concerns about red tape and Regulations. We want the situation to work for employees and employers, particularly those self-employed people who have one, two or three members of staff. Many self-employed people earn below the minimum wage.

114.

Many small business people who are not particularly well off struggle to find business. It would be wrong if we did not communicate their concerns, but we want to be positive and make the situation work. We want to work with the Committee, the Department and other business organisations to get a resolution. However, just because we have concerns about red tape and Regulations does not mean that we want to go back to the Dark Ages. Even within the senior membership of the federation, there is a high proportion of women who are successful entrepreneurs — women who have had families and have made a major contribution to the economy. That is what we want to see.

115.

Mrs Nelis: Women who did not disrupt your work?

116.

Mr Roberts: We are working with organisations such as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to try to take forward the broader situation about rights, both for employers and employees. That is why we are here today. We are not in favour of going backwards: we want to move forwards. We want to ensure that employees are protected and that there is a dynamic economy where small businesses thrive, where there is prosperity and where people have jobs.

117.

We are not against women having children. We suggested that there may be people who would decide to employ a certain person because of the Regulations. Because of the Bill, people may seek to employ a certain person because it would be easier for them to do so. We are not in favour of that. If they were to take that view, it would be completely wrong. We are trying to prevent that.

118.

Mr Mitchell: Much of what I was going to say has been said. The number of young women who are becoming members of the federation and starting their own businesses has encouraged us recently.

119.

The Chairperson: The Bill seems to make arrangements for financial compensation to companies, particularly small ones. The Bill also attempts to cover some of the administrative costs of processing maternity and paternity pay. You seem to have concerns that those provisions are not strong enough. Do you want to elaborate on that? Are they not definite or clear enough?

120.

Mr Munster: We are concerned that even administrating that will be a problem.

121.

Mr Roberts: That is the problem in a nutshell.

122.

The Chairperson: Are you saying that the provisions will not fully compensate companies? Is the bottom line that they will be out of pocket?

123.

Mr Munster: It is about how to measure the cost of the key person in the small business having to take the time to administer the mechanism used to pay the benefit; to reclaim whatever percentage they are allowed; and also to reclaim what they are allowed for administration.

124.

Ms McWilliams: You do not like the Bill in its entirety. Will you be proposing any amendments?

125.

Mr Roberts: We have highlighted three areas of the Bill, and we have made representations to the Department on this broad area. We need to consider specific practical amendments.

126.

Ms McWilliams: So there may be amendments?

127.

Mr Roberts: Yes. We are not completely opposed to the Bill. If there are practical amendments that we can make to address our concerns, we will go down that road.

128.

The Chairperson: We would be interested to see any ideas on detailed amendments that you come up with. The same will apply to other groups giving us evidence. I want to return to Arthur Doherty’s point about definition. The federation seems to be suggesting that it would like the Committee to amend certain provisions to exclude small businesses or to change the way in which they are treated. However, how should the Committee define a small business? Should it be defined as one with fewer than 10 employees, fewer than 25 or fewer than 50?

129.

Mr Mitchell: It would not be one number. There would need to be a graduated approach.

130.

Mr Carrick: I wish to express an interest: my wife is a small employer. Contrary to the impression that the Committee might have given this afternoon, I appreciate the contribution of small businesses to the Northern Ireland economy and the employment that they provide. I hope that they will continue to provide jobs.

131.

Mr Munster: Thank you.

132.

Mr R Hutchinson: I agree with Mr Carrick. Do not be put off by some of the Committee’s questions.

133.

Mrs Nelis: According to your statistics, women own only 7·6% of businesses.

134.

Mr Mitchell: Business ownership by women is increasing nationally, according to the latest survey.

135.

Mr Roberts: I presume that you refer to our ‘Barriers to Growth’ document. We had hoped for a better response rate to our survey.

136.

The Chairperson: On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for your oral evidence and for your written submission. I wish you well.

Thursday 20 June 2002

Dr Birnie (Chairperson)

Mr Carrick (Deputy Chairperson)

Dr Adamson

Mr Dallat

Mr Hilditch

Mr R Hutchinson

Mr B Gourley ) Northern Ireland Committee of the Ms A Hope ) Irish Congress of Trade Unions

Mr L McBrinn )

137.

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Gourley, Ms Hope and Mr McBrinn from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and thank them for their written evidence. They will now give a short presentation.

138.

Mr Gourley: I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present evidence on the Employment Bill. We are disappointed that much of the Bill will be passed through Westminster. We deal only with family-friendly policies, which, through no fault of the Committee’s, is outside its remit.

139.

Ms Hope: I, too, welcome the opportunity to make a presentation to the Committee. The progress in work-life balance issues, particularly improvements to maternity and parental leave rights, has been one of our key objectives for a long time. We represent some 220,000 workers in Northern Ireland, the majority of whom are parents and more than half of whom are female, so, for a long time, we have had input into those issues on behalf of all our affiliates. Many of our members have been adoptive parents, so we have worked on adoption issues also. In the past, no leave provision was made for adoptive parents, and it was not recognised that they needed time with a child, especially when they adopted older children rather than babies.

140.

We welcome all the advancements in the Employment Bill, but we have concerns about it. First, we question the definition of "employees" and the application of the legislation only to those so termed. We have always argued that all family-friendly rights should apply to workers, not just employees. "Employee" is a narrow definition of someone in the workforce; the broader term "worker" refers to someone with an employment contract or an employment relationship, thus covering both forms of employment.

141.

The narrower definition excludes the selfemployed; temporary workers; casual workers; and agency staff. Given the growth in numbers of such workers in Northern Ireland, especially among women, many people will be left outside the loop. That will leave an unacceptable gap in the extension of rights afforded by the Bill, so the matter must be considered seriously. We urge that the definition of "employee" be amended.

142.

We welcome the provisions to simplify maternity pay and leave, but the effective enforcement of maternity rights legislation, including the operation of sex discrimination law and health and safety rights, must be examined. While the response to ‘Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice’ was delivered by several organisations in GB, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau carried out research, particularly on the health and safety of pregnant women. We must consider health and enforcement issues. The Equality Commission, when it appears before the Committee, will point out that one of the hig