Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 February 2016

443 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As all the business in yesterday's Order Paper was considered, we will move on.

Executive Committee Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Environmental Better Regulation Bill [NIA 55/11-16] do now pass.

I am delighted that the Environmental Better Regulation Bill has at last progressed to its Final Stage. The Bill is a very worthwhile and positive development and, as I said during the Second Stage debate, is to be welcomed by all Members. I am grateful that that has proved to be the case thus far.

First, I express my thanks to the Environment Committee for the broad support that it has given to the Bill following its detailed and thorough scrutiny of the clauses and for its further engagement with a wide range of key stakeholders. The Committee's constructive and helpful recommendations brought about some amendments at Consideration Stage that improved and strengthened what was already a very solid Bill. I also express my thanks to my Executive colleagues and to Members for their ongoing support for the Bill, right from the start of the process to its present Final Stage.

Aristotle is credited with saying:

"Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered."

Currently, Northern Ireland environmental regulators operate under 230 pieces of environmental legislation, which has produced a complex and unwieldy legislative landscape that is difficult for the regulated to understand and for the regulators to enforce. It is clearly a system that should no longer remain unaltered. The Environmental Better Regulation Bill aims to harmonise and simplify aspects of that body of environmental legislation. Better environmental regulation will mean a cleaner, safer environment for all. It will also mean that businesses will benefit from the simplification and reduction of the legislative burden under which they operate, while the Department will benefit from a more cost-effective use of its resources.

The Bill is an important step in my Department's regulatory transformation programme, which will deliver an innovative and streamlined regulatory system that supports sustainable growth and increases compliance in the 21st century. The programme includes an ambitious and extensive programme of legislative reform, operational delivery and modernisation of supporting frameworks to create a more effective and intelligent regulatory system that is risk-based and outcome- and customer-focused. The overall agenda is to develop a framework for smarter, better regulation that works in partnership with businesses and contributes to a new strategic objective for the Department.

The Bill, as I have said previously, is primarily enabling legislation, and has already been thoroughly examined and spoken about in great detail during its passage to this point. I will therefore refer only briefly to its key provisions.

Part 1 and schedule 1 enable my Department to introduce an environmental permitting regime to replace the existing array of permits. This will reduce red tape for compliant operators and allow the Department to focus on higher-risk activities. Subordinate legislation, supporting measures and guidance will be developed to deliver the new regime. It is intended in particular that regulations made under the power will simplify and rationalise a wide range of existing measures relating to pollution prevention and control, waste management licensing, the water environment and radioactive substances. The aim is to move towards a single regulatory structure that will be significantly easier to use for both the Department and the businesses carrying on regulated activities.

Part 2 commits my Department to a review of all environmental powers of entry and associated powers to ensure that the powers are still justified and are used proportionally. During that review, my Department will also examine whether similar powers could be consolidated with a view to a more transparent and simplified regime for businesses and regulators. A report will be produced after the review, outlining findings and proposals on how my Department intends to reform powers of entry and associated powers, using the enabling powers outlined in the Bill. The report will be laid before the Assembly, and any enacting of the reforms outlined in the review through future legislation will be subject to consultation, as outlined in the Bill.

Part 2 also commits my Department to prepare a code of practice that authorised persons must have due regard to. The code, which will be laid in draft before the Assembly, will set out in detail the guidance and considerations that apply before, during and after powers of entry and associated powers are exercised. The purpose of the code is to ensure greater consistency in the exercise of powers of entry and provide greater clarity for those affected by them.

Part 3 contains amendments to the Clean Air Order 1981 that will provide for a new streamlined method for listing authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces for use in a smoke control area. The new arrangements will streamline the process for authorisation, with newly approved fuels and exempted fireplaces being authorised for use in smoke control areas each month, rather than the lengthy preparation of six-monthly regulations by my Department. It will also reduce the delay that manufacturers and consumers currently face when new fuels and fireplaces are brought onto the market.

Part 4 contains amendments to the Environment (NI) Order 2002, which are deregulatory measures to remove the requirement for a further assessment when an air quality management area has already been agreed. That will allow district councils to prepare and implement air quality action plans more quickly and avoid duplicating information already gathered, either in the earlier detailed assessment stage or in the preparation of the air quality plan. The change will have no impact on businesses and is in line with the view of local authorities in the rest of the UK, who see further assessments as an unnecessary burden that is an impediment to the speedy preparation and implementation of local air quality action plans.

Part 5 contains amendments to the Water and Sewerage Services (NI) Order 2006, which will transfer responsibility for the regulation of drinking water quality for public supplies from DRD to DOE. DOE currently has responsibility for private drinking water supplies. That will result in a more streamlined, efficient and transparent administrative structure that is in line with the aims of the better regulation agenda. It will help businesses and consumers by removing the potential for confusion over which Department is responsible for the regulation of public and private supply. There will be no changes in regulatory impacts on businesses, as my Department’s Drinking Water Inspectorate’s regulatory functions will remain the same.

I commend the Environmental Better Regulation Bill to the House.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill.

The Bill was introduced to the Assembly in June 2015, and the Committee undertook its detailed scrutiny of it and reported to the Assembly in November. The Committee recognises that, as environmental regulation has developed over time, it has become complex, with different inspection regimes and different rules making it confusing for businesses. The Committee is aware that the Bill is one aspect of a wider regulatory transformation programme aimed at reducing the burden of regulation on business.

The Bill is in essence a skeleton Bill, meaning that the real operation of the Act would be made entirely by the regulations under it. The Committee recognises the merits of better regulation. However, it is important that, as the subordinate legislation programme is developed, standards are not lowered as a result of simplifying and streamlining environmental regulation. A balance must be struck between streamlining the regulatory regime and not compromising the Northern Ireland Environment Agency’s compliance and enforcement role.

The Bill has been improved and strengthened because of amendments that the Environment Committee persuaded the Department to accept in the following specific areas. As the Bill is an enabling Bill, the Committee ensured that the level of protection afforded to the Assembly in the scrutiny of the regulations was sufficient. The Committee sought an amendment to extend this scrutiny to the Department’s draft code of practice in relation to powers of entry and associated powers. The Committee expressed concern that the Bill gave the Department broad powers and that the definition of "environmental activities" in Part 1 of the Bill was wide-ranging and all-encompassing. Therefore, the Committee sought the removal of powers provided to the Department in schedule 1 to further define or modify the definition of "environmental activities" and to specify additional environmental activities. The Committee also ensured that the purpose of the Bill — streamlining and reducing the regulatory burden while protecting and improving the environment — was reflected in the Bill. I believe that the Committee’s detailed consideration of the Bill has ensured that there is sufficient scrutiny of the regulations and that the protection of the environment remains at the forefront of any regulatory programme.

I would like to conclude my comments by taking this opportunity to place on record my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who took the time to provide written and oral evidence to the Committee and the members of the Committee, past and present, for their contributions during Committee Stage. I also thank the Minister and his officials for their positive engagement with the Committee, during and after Committee Stage, and for taking the Committee’s amendments on board. Last but not least, I thank the Committee staff for their valuable assistance during the entire process of the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I support the Bill.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

As a DUP member of the Environment Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill.

While this is largely a technical Bill and many of the key points have been covered, not only today but in previous stages, I wish to voice my support for the Bill and the principles on which it is based. The core function of the Bill is to streamline environmental regulation while robustly protecting the environment and, in turn, ensuring that businesses are able to operate in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

The Bill will amend the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to provide a framework that is easier to regulate, understand and operate. Under the Bill, the existing separate regimes governing waste, pollution, water and radioactive substances will be brought together into a single piece of legislation ensuring greater uniformity and ease of use.

In passing through the various stages, the Committee has sought to ensure that those who comply with environmental regulations are free to continue their good practices unburdened by red tape, and that will, in turn, I hope, free up resources to pursue those who are failing in their environmental responsibilities. By freeing up those resources, serial offenders or those who seriously breach regulations will be dealt with severely and quickly. On the other hand, businesses that have breached the regulations through error or misinterpretation will receive support and guidance to help achieve compliance.

At Consideration Stage, I used the example of the disproportionately high levels of fish kills in my constituency of South Antrim and will mention it again, as it highlights the tangible difference that the Bill will make. During the last five years, 20 pollution incidents have occurred, decimating fish stocks and the associated delicate ecosystems of major tributaries of Lough Neagh. Yet only half of these have resulted in prosecution. Such incidents of environmental crime are happening right across Northern Ireland, and, as the culprits are continually going unpunished, they are free to carry on flouting the law. Passing the Bill will release much-needed capital to allow our statutory bodies to use additional resources to swiftly bring offenders to justice.

Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will make businesses more aware of what is required of them and make it easier for the Department to assess and implement compliance. It will also include parts of EU legislation that have previously been excluded and simplify the rules for powers of entry. During scrutiny of the Bill, I am pleased that we were able to add some much-needed clarity to Parts 1 and 2 to allow for greater understanding of the purpose and objectives of the Bill. It also better outlines the basis of what will be enforced in the future.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 provide streamlined methods for listing authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces for use in smoke-free zones, which will mean that businesses will have to wait for only one month before they are passed for use, instead of the current six. These Parts also transfer the regulation of drinking water quality from DRD to DOE, and I believe that to be a pragmatic and sensible approach given the Department's expertise in dealing with water quality matters. Given the amalgamation of the Departments of Environment and Agriculture in the next mandate, I also feel that this is a practical move to reduce red tape.

This Bill is to be welcomed for the environment and for businesses in Northern Ireland. Whilst I fully appreciate that over- and, indeed, under-regulation can only result in poor outcomes, this Bill strikes an appropriate balance and takes a user-friendly approach to environmental regulation. I would like to reiterate that the Bill is not intended in any way to dilute the importance of environmental regulation. Its sole purpose is to reduce bureaucracy and make it easier for businesses to fulfil their environmental obligations. That is to be welcomed.

I am assured that it will be of vast benefit to our environment through quicker, more streamlined action for those who fail to comply with regulation and that less cumbersome legislation can only provide better results for Northern Ireland businesses. I support the Bill.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an Bhille. I will speak in favour of the Bill at its Final Stage. I start by putting on record my thanks to the Chair for the way in which she conducted business on the Bill and for all her work as Chair of the Committee. I know that she is leaving at the end of the mandate, and I thank her for her contribution. I take this opportunity to thank Mr Alban Maginness, who has made a valuable contribution to the Environment Committee over the last number of years. I also thank the departmental officials and the Minister for the way that they worked with the Committee.

The Minister outlined that the Bill will bring about a simplified regime and harmonise all environmental regulations, especially EU regulations and regulations on environmental practices. This is good legislation, but, as the Chair said, it is a skeleton Bill. The devil will be in the detail of the way in which the regulations are rolled out, and maybe the Minister will touch on that. We are going into a new and bigger Department, and I want to ensure that what we legislate for today will not be lost in the bigger Department. How the legislation and the regulations roll out will be telling.

On the face of it, what we are trying to do will mean that there is less of a burden on businesses. It is vital that, when we bring forward further regulations, we talk to and engage with businesses. Through the scrutiny process in Committee, we suggested amendments at Consideration Stage. Those were then brought forward by the Minister, and that is to be welcomed. If we are to get this right, we must continue to work with businesses. We have struck a balance in what we are trying to do with the Bill: some of the regulations and the subordinate legislation will strike a balance between helping and supporting the industry and improving our environment. I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I support the Bill — no surprise there. This is another example of good work and cooperation between the Environment Committee, the Department and the Minister, Mr Durkan. It is fashionable to be very critical of this institution — the Assembly — and say that we are all wasters, we are doing nothing, we are bringing politics into disrepute and so on. That is the view expressed by the commentators who populate television, radio and the press, but, in fact, lots of valuable work is done by the Assembly. I congratulate everybody in the Assembly who contributes to that work, particularly on Committees. This is a good example of the Committee working very well to bring about good legislation in cooperation with the Minister and under the very able chairmanship of Anna Lo. I pay tribute to her work on the Committee over a number of years. In the period that I have been on the Committee, I found that she gave considerable and significant leadership. She brings a particular passion to the whole issue of the environment. As Committee members, it is right and proper that we acknowledge that, as, indeed, Mr Boylan mentioned.

The two Members who spoke before me referred to the Bill as a skeleton. Flesh will be put on the bones. That flesh will be the regulations as they come through. You need this basic piece of law to build on in order to bring about what the Minister quite properly said is his objective: to get the right balance, to simplify the burden of regulation for those involved with the environment, to remove a level and burden of cost on individual businesses and individuals, and to streamline the regulatory framework and make it innovative. The Minister is right that this will establish a more intelligent framework and context in which we address the issue of the environment. That must be the strategic objective for the Department of the Environment. Mr Boylan quite properly said that the Department of the Environment will be subsumed and divided, like Gaul, into three parts. However, it will continue to exist in successor Departments. It is very important that, in dealing with the environment, we set the proper regulatory and legal basis for it to continue its good work. I hope that the successor Departments will take that challenge seriously. I know that the Minister has taken it seriously; Minister Durkan has proven to be a very able, effective and innovative Minister. I hope that that position will remain with whomever takes over from Mr Durkan in the near future.

I congratulate everybody involved — the officials, the Department and the Committee. I reiterate that the Committee has undertaken good work in relation to the Bill. I hope that the House will be unanimous in supporting it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As this is Mr Alastair Patterson's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the House that it is the convention that a maiden speech is made without interruption.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I very much welcome the opportunity to make my first contribution to the House. Before I make a few wider comments, as the Ulster Unionist Party's new spokesperson for the environment, I will say that I am glad to see the Bill completing its legislative process. I was also pleased to see that, when the Assembly previously debated the Bill, it resulted in several further amendments being made. It was Sandra Overend who sat on the Committee. I know, from talking to her, that it was maybe not the most typical of Bills, even to someone completely new to the House. The Bill sounds well-meaning, but it is, undoubtedly, light on detail in new policy direction. Having read the Committee report, I realise that the Bill is what is considered to be enabling legislation. Therefore, I wish the new Department well in its efforts to reform and modernise our new regulatory framework through regulations. However, I urge the next Minister to realise the importance of genuine consultation with not only the Committee but the industries that will need to comply with the new framework.

I am deeply humbled and honoured at my recent selection by the constituency association of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to carry on the mandate and excellent work of the elected Member Tom Elliott MP, who was an outstanding representative for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the House since his first election here in 2003.

Tom has been a tireless worker for the people of his constituency and for all the people of Northern Ireland. Following his success in the election of May 2015, he proudly represents our constituency and the Ulster Unionist Party in our mother Parliament at Westminster.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor Mr Neil Somerville, who sadly resigned due to ill health. I am pleased to inform the House that, at a recent handover meeting, Neil informed me that his health is improving and that he is doing much better. I am sure that the entire House would like to join me today in wishing Neil continued, improving and good health in the days, weeks, months and years that lie ahead. Neil made the brave decision to resign from the House, and I want to put on record my thanks to him for all that he has done for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I wish him, his wife and his family God's richest blessing going into the future.

Representation of the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been passed to me. I certainly look forward to the challenges that lie ahead over the next few busy weeks in the House as the term comes to an end. I want to build on the legacy of my predecessors and provide strong representation. I promise to work tirelessly for all the people of my amazing and picturesque constituency, which has so much to offer.

I want to bring my 20 years of successful business experience in the construction industry to the House and work towards building a better future for all our people, regardless of religion, political stance, race or gender. I want to build a Northern Ireland that we can all be proud of and that people from all over the world want to visit.

Representing Fermanagh and South Tyrone, an area of outstanding natural beauty where tourism is extremely important, I pledge myself to working with all Members to promote, whenever and wherever we can, what Northern Ireland has to offer, especially in this year of food and drink. We must ensure that we promote hospitality to all. I confess to having a vested interest in the area of hospitality, as my wife, Olga, is chair of Hospitality Ulster. Trust me, Mr Speaker, going home does not even bring about quietness, as I am often lobbied there on the needs of our hospitality industry and its request to reform Northern Ireland's outdated licensing laws.

Health will be one of my priorities in the House. On behalf of our people, I will be pressing our Health Minister on the need for more resources, in particular for the South West Acute Hospital, which sadly does not even have full-time doctor cover at weekends. That is extremely sad. It seems that you are not allowed to be sick at weekends. Another issue that has shocked me already is the sheer length of time that patients are forced to wait for diagnostic tests and treatment. In particular, it is extremely unacceptable that the number of people forced to wait longer than the maximum 18 weeks for an appointment with a consultant in the South Tyrone has jumped from 16 three years ago to a massive 1,414 at the end of last year. There was a similar upsurge at the South West Acute Hospital from 38 to 1,566. Keeping so many people waiting for so long, all of whom are experiencing a great deal of anxiety and many of whom are in pain, is simply unacceptable.

Education will be another priority —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am obliged to remind you that we are discussing an environment Bill. I would be very happy if you would contain your remarks to the subject matter in front of us.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will be seeking clarification from the Education Minister about why, after 10 years, the pupils of Devenish College still do not have the new school that they were promised. The cramped conditions of their existing, outdated school campus certainly are not helping their education.

On this day, I make it clear that it is my priority to represent all the people of my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I make it clear to all Members that I will extend the hand of friendship to them all to work for the benefit of all the people. I was brought up in a very traditional home, and I was taught by my mother and my late father to show respect to all. I want to build an approach to all business in the House on the strong foundations of mutual respect and understanding and to play my part in building a strong Northern Ireland that we can be proud of.

I will finish with an extract from a sermon that I delivered in my church on Sunday 31 January, which I feel should be our aim. It was this:

"If we fail to give our highest priorities our greatest attention, something of lesser significance will quickly take their place and fill up our time".

Let us, the elected representatives, ensure that the people we represent are our highest priority and get our greatest attention.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and throughout the legislative process. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Environment Committee, who today made, as always, a telling contribution. I take the opportunity to reassure Ms Lo and, indeed, the House that environmental standards will not be lowered as a result of this simplification of environmental regulation.

Mrs Cameron also spoke today. She never misses the opportunity to raise fish kills in her constituency. Like her, I am sure that the improvements in regulation will lead to a reduction and ideally, some day, a complete eradication of incidents of that type.

Mr Boylan spoke of the "skeleton" Bill. The Assembly will be kept informed and, indeed, consulted as flesh is put on the bones of the Bill through regulations. I am glad to hear Mr Boylan articulate his concerns about whether primacy will be given to environmental regulation in a new Department. That should serve as a reminder to us all that we all have a duty and will have a duty in the next mandate, hopefully, to promote the importance of protecting our environment.

I thank Mr Maginness for his kind words. I am certainly going to miss him. I congratulate Mr Patterson on his elevation to the Assembly. The transition from frying pan to fire is never easy, but he made a fine maiden speech. I am sure that we will hear much more from him. I join him in wishing his immediate predecessor Mr Somerville well. Mr Patterson said that he hoped that the new Minister would be aware of the importance of consultation: I do not think that I am over-egging the pudding or blowing my own trumpet when I say that I think that good, strong and thorough consultation have been a hallmark of my Ministry. I also concur with Mr Patterson's views on health, education, the economy and much, much more.

[Laughter.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I remind the Minister that we are discussing the Environmental Better Regulation Bill.

[Laughter.]

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I conclude, a Cheann Comhairle, by thanking, as did other Members, the Committee staff for their work throughout the process and, indeed, my own officials.

It has been a particularly complex piece of legislation, and they have worked hard to answer the many questions that I, for one, have had to ask them.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Environmental Better Regulation Bill [NIA Bill 55/11-16] do now pass.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate deals with tribunals and assessments and comprises amendment Nos 1 to 8, 18 and 19 and the Minister's opposition to clauses 4 and 8. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 9 to 17, which deal with information, employment rights and traineeships.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If all that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 to 3. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group these clauses for the Question on stand part.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. The Minister for Employment and Learning has signalled his intention to oppose the Question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill. With this Question, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos I to 8, 18, 19 and the opposition to clause 8 stand part. These amendments relate to tribunals and assessments. Members should note that amendment No 8 is mutually exclusive with the opposition to clauses 4 and 8.

Clause 4 (Assessment of likely outcome of any proceedings)

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 1: In clause 5, page 5, line 10, after "add “" insert

"(irrespective of the number of heads of claim)". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 2: In clause 5, page 5, line 12, at end insert

"(2) In Article 25 of that Order (regulations and orders)?—

(a) in paragraph (1), for “All” substitute “Subject to paragraph (1A), all”;

(b) after paragraph (1) insert?—

“(1A) Regulations which include provision under Article 11(2)(a) shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 3: In clause 7, page 7, leave out line 37 and insert

"for “to Article 46A” substitute “and to Articles 46A and 46B”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 4: In clause 9, page 8, line 37, after "add “" insert

"(irrespective of the number of heads of claim)". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 5: In clause 9, page 8, line 39, at end insert

"(2) In Article 104 of that Order (regulations and orders)?—

(a) in paragraph (1), after “101(1)” insert “and no regulations which include provision under Article 84B(2)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (2), after “Schedule 1” insert “and regulations which include provision under Article 84B(2)(a)”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 6: After clause 9 insert

"Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

9A.—(1) The Department may by regulations make provision for a prescribed person to provide relevant parties with an assessment in accordance with the regulations of prescribed matters in connection with any tribunal proceedings which might be or have been instituted by one or more of those parties.

(2) In this section?—

“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this section;

“relevant parties” means such persons as may be prescribed;

“tribunal proceedings” means prescribed proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the Fair Employment Tribunal.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 7: After clause 9 insert

"Review of early conciliation

9B.—(1) The Department must review the operation of?—

(a) Articles 20 to 20C of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

(b) Articles 46B and 88ZA to 88ZC of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; and

(c) the amendments made by Schedules 1 and 2,

at the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of this section.

(2) The Department shall, having consulted with relevant stakeholders including employers, lay the findings of this review in a report to the Assembly.

(3) The report shall in particular include?—

(a) a synopsis of consultation responses;

(b) an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions;

(c) the number of cases overall, the number dealt with by early conciliation, the length of time taken for each and the outcome of each;

(d) any savings directly attributable to the introduction of these provisions.

(4) The Department shall also review and report as in subsections (2) and (3) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into operation of early conciliation.". — [Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning).]

No 8: After clause 9 insert

"Review of neutral assessment

9C.—(1) The Department must review the operation of?—

(a) Article 20D of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; and

(b) Article 88ZD of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998,

at the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of this section.

(2) The Department shall, having consulted with relevant stakeholders including employers, lay the findings of this review in a report to the Assembly.

(3) The report shall in particular include?—

(a) a synopsis of consultation responses;

(b) an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions;

(c) the number of cases overall, the number dealt with by neutral assessment, the length of time taken for each and the outcome of each;

(d) any savings directly attributable to the introduction of these provisions.

(4) The Department shall also review and report as in subsections (2) and (3) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into operation of neutral assessment.". — [Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning).]

No 18: In schedule 3, page 24, line 21, column 2, at beginning insert

"Article 38(1A).

In Article 46(1), the words from “and to any regulations” to “2003”.".

No 19: In schedule 3, page 24, line 33, column 2, at end insert

"In Schedule 5, paragraph 4(1) and (2).".

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call the Minister to address his opposition to clause 4 and to speak to the other amendments in the group and his opposition to clause 8 stand part.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

At the outset, I want to place on record my appreciation to the Chair, members and staff of the Committee for Employment and Learning for their extraordinarily efficient and speedy processing of the Bill's Committee Stage and the publication of their Committee report. It is particularly constructive in light of the pressing timetable as we approach the end of the mandate. That has of course been completed while giving full and thorough scrutiny to the Bill.

I turn first to my opposition to clause 4. Clause 4 deals with the proposed process of neutral assessment as it relates to industrial tribunal claims or potential industrial tribunal claims. I refer Members also to clause 8 because it has the same purpose except that it relates to claims or potential claims to the Fair Employment Tribunal. I am opposing the inclusion of those two clauses because, as drafted, they are more restrictive than key stakeholders have now suggested they ought to be. As the provisions stand, they allow an independent assessor, with parties' agreement, to provide a view on the likely outcome of a particular case that may be or has been referred to a tribunal. That would be in the context of the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) trying to promote a conciliated settlement between the parties.

The drafting of both clauses reflects the approach originally envisaged by my Department to the new neutral assessment service. It was always intended that the detail would be developed following a process of further engagement with stakeholders.

I now oppose the clauses because feedback received in response to the Employment and Learning Committee's call for evidence on the Bill has raised issues with the original approach, and it is right to take the opportunity to address them. There was concern that the implications for other services, particularly the arbitration scheme operated by the LRA and the early neutral evaluation process being piloted by the tribunals, had not been fully considered. On the basis of that feedback, I have re-engaged with the tribunal service and the Labour Relations Agency. Each organisation has a key role in helping to develop practical solutions on the delivery of neutral assessment, with the key being to provide parties with a clear sense of direction when dealing with a dispute.

Taking account of my discussions and the evidence to the Committee, I have concluded that the clause, as it stands, does not set the right enabling framework for the service. The proposed neutral assessment service will be the first of its kind in these islands. It is important to take on board points that have been raised about the framework under which it is to be developed and to improve the enabling legislation so that, when the service is established, it is fit for purpose.

In moving amendment No 6, I am proposing the inclusion in the Bill of new clause 9A, which is a rethinking of the enabling provisions originally in clauses 4 and 8, taking into account the issues that have been raised. Clause 9A is intended to replace those clauses and give the Department power to establish the service and to determine the means of delivery through regulations. Neutral assessment could, as originally envisaged, be delivered by the employment relations experts appointed by the LRA who have a strong practical experience of workplace practice. It could also be delivered by employment judges who have authoritative knowledge of case law and of what a person will need to do to succeed in presenting a case. It could also be that some other prescribed person identified in the regulations would be the most appropriate to deliver the service.

The regulations will be able to set out the means of delivery, the scope of the service and the steps involved. The regulations will be developed on the basis of evidence gathered from the forthcoming review of the LRA's statutory arbitration scheme; an evaluation of how the new early conciliation arrangements in the Bill are bedding down; and consideration of the effectiveness of the early neutral evaluation process that is already being offered on a pilot basis by employment tribunals. To be clear to the House, this is not a step back from the intention behind the policy, which is to provide people with an early assessment of the issues in their case so that they can make better informed decisions about how to deal with it. On the contrary, it is a recasting of the enabling provision to ensure that the legislative framework gives sufficient flexibility to develop a process that is fit for purpose and which works well for its users.

I will turn to the issue of tribunal deposits, which is dealt with in clauses 5 and 9. There are four proposed amendments that are relevant: amendment Nos 1, 2, 4 and 5. Clause 5 gives my Department broader flexibility than has been available to it before to make provision dealing with the placing of a requirement on parties to industrial tribunal proceedings to pay deposits in order to continue with those proceedings. It does so by amending the enabling power in article 11 of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Clause 9 makes a comparable amendment to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. The amendment fulfils the same purpose in respect of proceedings before the Fair Employment Tribunal.

During the Employment and Learning Committee's consideration of those clauses, members expressed concern about the potential for revised enabling powers to be used to introduce a requirement on parties to pay more than one deposit in a given tribunal case. My officials accepted that that was a potential use to which the revised enabling powers could be put. The question of whether there should be the option of requiring more than one deposit in a case was an issue on which, among many others, my Department consulted from July to September last year. My officials indicated to the Committee that no change along those lines would be made without fully considering the potential impacts on access to justice.

Members of the Committee remained concerned, however, that such a change could be brought about by regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure. I fully appreciate that changes to the tribunal deposits regime have the potential to be contentious. It is certainly clear from responses to the public consultation on developing more efficient, effective and modern tribunals that there is both opposition to and support for that type of measure. I think that we have a responsibility to consider options to encourage tribunal claimants and respondents to think very carefully before bringing forward for the tribunal's consideration matters in which they are unlikely to succeed. When weak claims or responses are presented, other parties can incur costs in contesting them.

I want a system that is focused on the areas that have substance and merit, and it is right that there are proportionate mechanisms to discourage people from bringing to our tribunals matters with little substance. At the same time, I fully accept that people have the right to access the employment tribunal system for a judgement, and, if they believe strongly that they have a case, they should be entitled to pursue it. That is why there are safeguards around a party's ability to pay when the imposition of a deposit is considered.

Having thought carefully about the issue and taken on board the points made in Committee, I seek the agreement of the House to amendment Nos 2 and 5, which, respectively, would make any regulations that utilise the deposits provision for industrial tribunals or the fair employment tribunal subject to the draft affirmative procedure before the Assembly. I believe that the amendments establish the safeguard that the Committee seeks, in that any relevant regulations will need to be positively endorsed by the Chamber.

I do not, however, support amendment Nos 1 and 4 tabled by Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms McGahan. There has been a public consultation focused on developing a better tribunal system, and policy decisions still need to be taken forward following full consideration of the evidence presented by stakeholders in response to that consultation. I do not believe that it is the right approach for us at this stage to rule out any possibility of regulations dealing with multiple deposits when the evidence is still under review. The proposed amendments would establish exactly that restriction, closing off options even if the evidence suggests that they should be explored. Given that amendment Nos 2 and 5 will give the House the ultimate say over whether regulations dealing with deposits are introduced, I hope that Members will agree with me that it is premature to close off options at this stage with regard to the enabling powers. We can now ensure that full safeguards are put in place to guarantee that the views of the Assembly are to the forefront. The amendments from the respective Members are not necessary at this stage.

Amendment No 3 relates to clause 7. As it stands, clause 7 amends the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to provide for an extension of the time limit for making a claim to the fair employment tribunal to allow for early conciliation under the auspices of the Labour Relations Agency. In reviewing the clause, officials established the need for a small technical amendment. I seek the agreement of the House to amend clause 7 to remove from article 46(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order a reference to statutory dispute resolution procedures that are no longer operative. The procedures were repealed by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. This is simply a tidying amendment to remove statutory references to procedures that no longer apply, and I hope that Members will support it.

Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are related. They apply to schedule 3, which sets out repeals. Amendment No 18 removes references from the Fair Employment and Treatment Order that relate to statutory dispute resolution procedures that were repealed by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Amendment No 19 repeals provisions of the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 that relate to the same procedures. They are also tidying amendments, reflecting the fact that the statutory dispute resolution procedures in question have ceased to have effect.

I turn now to amendment Nos 7 and 8, tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning. Amendment No 7, which is new clause 9B, requires my Department to review the entirety of the Labour Relations Agency's conciliation service at the end of one year and again after three years following commencement of the early conciliation provisions of the Bill. It also requires the Department, having consulted relevant stakeholders, to lay a report before the Assembly setting out the findings of the review. Amendment No 8, which is new clause 9C, establishes the same requirements in relation to neutral assessment.

I am content with the objective of the proposed review clauses. While my Department, the Labour Relations Agency and the tribunal service consider the effectiveness of their work on an ongoing basis, I have no difficulty in general with the requirements. However, I have a concern about aspects of the proposed wording of subsection 3(c) in each clause. As the draft stands, the Department would be required, among other things, to report on the time taken for each case and the outcome of each case. Those requirements seem reasonable at first glance, but the phrasing is important. An analysis or report that touches on information about each individual case has implications for confidentiality. The LRA is under a legal duty to maintain confidentiality in delivering its services. Indeed, that duty is expanded on by clause 20. It is important that early conciliation is not compromised by a reporting requirement that touches on individual cases.

A similar issue arises in relation to neutral assessment. Although the regulations establishing that service have yet to be developed, there is a real possibility that confidentiality could be an important consideration. A reporting requirement that does not touch on individual cases but seeks aggregated information on cases would deal with this concern. I understand the Employment and Learning Committee’s rationale for tabling the amendments, and I know that the Committee has been made aware of the issue. I look forward to hearing the Chair’s remarks on the matter.

On a more technical point, if, as I hope, Members are positively disposed to new clause 9A on neutral assessment and the exclusion from the Bill of clauses 4 and 8, there will be a need to look again at proposed clause 9C to reflect that position. In conclusion, I look forward to hearing the views of Members on the amendments in the group.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I am happy to speak on behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning at Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. First, I also pay tribute to and thank the staff and members of the Committee for their work over the time that we have put in in scrutinising the Bill. The Minister described it as an extraordinarily efficient use of legislative time through the Committee. I do not think that he has used such an adjective often in reference to the work of the Committee. We will take note of what he said, and I note from his opening comments that he has taken due cognisance of the recommendations and concerns that were brought forward by the Committee.

The Committee for Employment and Learning recognises the Minister’s aims in bringing forward the Employment Bill: to make provision for early resolution of workplace disputes and to create an assessment service; to introduce significant reform to the law around public interest disclosures; and to allow the Department to make provision for careers guidance, apprenticeships and traineeships through regulations. The Committee has always supported the Minister in that endeavour. On behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I thank the Minister and his officials for his open engagement throughout the course of the Bill and in responding promptly to Committee concerns.

The Employment Bill was introduced on 7 December 2015 at the First Stage. The Committee wrote to key stakeholders and inserted public notices in the regional newspapers seeking written evidence by 21 December. The Bill reached Second Stage on 12 January 2016 before being referred to the Committee for scrutiny on 13 January 2016. At this stage, I pay tribute again to the Committee staff for having everything in process. It may be a legislative record that the Committee Stage started one day after the Second Stage was read in the House. A total of 10 organisations responded to the request for written evidence, of which four provided oral evidence to the Committee. Those four organisations were the Labour Relations Agency, the Law Centre Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Employment and Skills. The Committee greatly valued the input of all of the stakeholders in assisting the scrutiny of the Bill at Committee Stage.

I will first speak on amendment No 2, which amends clause 5. Clause 5 concerns the payment of deposits at industrial tribunals. The Committee raised concerns with the Department on 6 January 2016 about why negative resolution was being used for enabling powers relating to tribunal deposits as opposed to the draft affirmative procedure. On 20 January, the Department briefed the Committee on outstanding issues in the Bill and advised that it had taken the concerns on board and had drafted an amendment to clause 5 so that deposits would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The Minister confirmed that today in his opening comments. The Department advised that this would provide a full opportunity for Members to consider the merits of any proposals brought forward in this area. The Committee accepts the logic of that decision and is content with clause 9 as amended.

Amendment No 5 amends clause 9. Clause 9 is the same as clause 5, except for the fact it relates to deposits to the fair employment tribunal instead of industrial tribunals. The Committee accepts the Minister’s amendment to clause 9 to make deposits subject to draft affirmative procedure as opposed to negative resolution and is content with clause 9 as amended.

I now turn to amendment No 6, which concerns a departmental amendment to insert new clause 9A. The Committee was advised by the Department on 19 January that it was proposing a revised approach to the neutral assessment service. The Department was doing so on the basis of the evidence presented to the Committee on 6 January, in particular the concerns raised by the Labour Relations Agency about the operation of the service. Clause 9A is drafted so as to replace clauses 4 and 8 and give the Department power to make regulations conferring on a specified person power to deliver a specified process of assessment.

The Committee is content with proposed new clause 9A and that the Minister has opposed clauses 4 and 8.

I will now speak to the Committee’s amendments, which the Minister referred to. Amendment No 7 inserts new clause 9B into the Bill. Clause 9B will place a duty on the Department to conduct a systematic review of the early conciliation service. At its meeting on 9 January, the Committee heard from stakeholders about their concerns regarding the operation of the early conciliation service. The Committee therefore agreed to table an amendment to insert a review clause into the Bill. Clause 9B will review the operation of the early conciliation service one year after it commences and, from then on, the service will be reviewed every three years. It has come to the attention of the Committee that subsection 3(c) of clause 9B may breach confidentiality requirements. On 3 February, the Department advised the Committee that it would be content to support the Committee’s amendment, provided that the Committee redrafted subsection 3(c) of clause 9B and tabled it with the Bill Office to be debated at Further Consideration Stage. That will be debated at the Committee tomorrow, with agreement from the Minister.

If the opposition to clauses 4 and 8 is supported by the House and, equally, if the House agrees the new clause as tabled by the Minister in amendment No 6, I expect that the Committee's amendment No 8 will not be called. It is the Committee's intention to accommodate the changes brought by the removal of clauses 4 and 8 and the insertion of amendment No 6 by re-tabling an updated version of our amendment, as we are very keen to see that policy intention placed in the Bill.

I will now make a few brief comments as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson for employment and learning. We will be opposing clauses 1 and 4, as we believe that the draft affirmative resolution procedure will provide as adequate an amount of scrutiny by the House as was achieved by the Committee. There will be a move from negative resolution to draft affirmative resolution as proposed in the original Bill. We will be supporting clauses 2 and 5. That concludes my opening remarks.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. Like the Chair, I thank the Minister, the Department and even the Committee staff for all the work they have done in bringing the Bill to this stage.

Very briefly, I welcome amendment No 2 to clause 5 and amendment No 5 to clause 9. Those two amendments are similar, in that they deal specifically with deposits: clause 5 dealing with industrial tribunals; and clause 9 dealing with fair employment tribunals. Those amendments will ensure that deposits will now be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure of the Assembly and that any regulations that utilise the deposits provision for either of the two tribunals will require Assembly approval before being made. I think that that cuts out any concern that there is on those issues.

Amendment No 3 to clause 7 is simply a technical amendment, which has already been outlined by the Minister, and is necessary to include provisions on conciliation to help employers and employees.

Amendment No 6 to clause 9A, which replaces clauses 4 and 8, will be welcome news for many stakeholders, in particular the Tribunals Service and the Labour Relations Agency. The flexibility that that will provide will allow for the structuring of the neutral assessment service to better provide and deliver for the purpose that it was designed for.

Amendment Nos 7 and 8 from the Committee have been laid out in detail. The Committee Chair mentioned them, and I do not intend to reiterate those points. Turning to amendment Nos 1 and 4 in the name of Mr Flanagan, Ms Bronwyn McGahan and Mr Fra McCann, let me say first of all that we will be opposing those amendments. I have heard and listened to the arguments for the purpose of those two amendments and the concerns about the implications of having more than one deposit of £500 on any single claim. However, it is fair to say that this is a potentially contentious area and that there is support for and opposition to any change of this kind. That is why the Committee pressed for this to be brought in under the affirmative resolution process, rather than being placed in the Bill.

I believe that, should the amendments be made, they will close off the option on which a policy decision remains to be made in light of the outcome of the public consultation on the future of tribunals. I do not believe that we should be in the business of closing down the option that we have to look at those issues following the consultation process. That is why we will oppose those two amendments today, but with the assurance that the individual taking a claim is protected from multiple deposits, as that would require Assembly approval first. With that, I will conclude on this group of amendments.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill, and I commend the Minister for getting it this far. As I said at Second Stage, he has had some difficulties in progressing it, but he is flying through it now. I commend the Committee staff and my colleagues on the Committee for the speedy and diligent approach that they took to scrutinising the Bill and progressing it through Committee Stage.

Robin highlighted the two amendments that the Committee has brought forward. I largely agree with what others have said, so I do not intend to rehearse the discussion that has taken place around the Committee amendments. Instead, I intend to focus my contribution on amendment Nos 2 and 5, which deal with the need for future regulations on deposits in fair employment and industrial tribunals to be approved by draft affirmative resolution, and amendment Nos 1 and 4, which are tabled in my name and that of my colleagues, which would prohibit multiple deposits against somebody taking a claim to either of the two tribunals.

First, I welcome the Minister's tabling amendment Nos 2 and 5. I proposed in Committee that we should ask the Minister to bring that forward. Everybody accepts the need for it. When the Minister presented his response to the Committee, he indicated that, historically, deposits at tribunals have not been a contentious issue and, as such, negative resolution may have worked well in the past. However, if we look at what is happening in Britain and how denying people the right to access a tribunal is being used to erode workers' rights, it is very clear that tribunals are becoming a contentious issue. There have been a number of legal challenges in England with regard to the whole issue of tribunals, fees and multiple deposits. So, the whole issue of deposits and fees at tribunals is an area of contention, and I am glad to see that the Minister has accepted the Committee's proposal to make sure that any future changes to deposits must have the consent of the House before the change is made.

In the past, that was not required, and we could have had a situation where a change was made to a deposit or a tribunal, and Members in this House could then have dragged the Minister or his successor back into the Chamber to reverse that decision. So, this is for good governance reasons, and it will send out clarity and surety to people who are involved in tribunals, which are a very complex business. The testimony that we received as a Committee about tribunals indicates that it is very complex, and people do not really want to go there, but when they do, it should be made fairly easy for them to do it. So, it is good that there will now be surety for people in that they will know what the maximum deposit is, and subsequent change will need the approval of the House before it happens.

As I said, I am concerned about the direction in which tribunals are going in England. There was a massive push to introduce fees, and I am glad that the Minister very quickly stepped away from introducing fees for accessing tribunals. In England, where the introduction of fees has taken place, there has been a 79% decrease in the number of tribunal cases taken against employers. I do not think that we want to go down a similar route. I think that it would be better if we could see a reduction in the number of cases that make it to court, but that needs to happen through the Minister's proposals for early conciliation and trying to get as many of these things settled amicably as early as possible, instead of just denying people the right to get their day in court, to get their good name restored and to get any compensation or back pay that they might be entitled to.

The introduction of fees or overly high deposits is a barrier to justice. It largely impacts on the most vulnerable workers in the economy, those people who do not have the same protection as others, who are in non-unionised workplaces and part-time workers. Therefore, it would disproportionately impact on women who are trying to take a case to a tribunal to get a fair hearing. So, I am glad that the Minister did not pursue the issue of fees, but the issue of deposits being a prohibitive barrier for people trying to access justice remains. Currently, a deposit of up to £500 can be imposed by a fair employment or industrial tribunal in cases where the person who will now be referred to as an employment judge decides that there is little possibility of success. If claimants wish to continue and lose the case, they will forfeit the deposit.

Clauses 5 and 9 establish enabling powers that would allow the Department to introduce regulations that are subject to negative Assembly procedure. As we have all said, the change will move that to affirmative resolution. As it stands, without the two amendments that we have tabled, the Bill would allow for multiple deposits to be imposed within one case, and the current maximum of £500 would be set aside. You could see a scenario in which an aggrieved or former employee takes a case to a tribunal for four, five or six different reasons. The judge, or chairperson as they are still called, could say that each of those claims was subject to a £500 deposit. Somebody who has recently lost their job, is working part-time, is in a very low-paid job or who has been badly treated by an employer may be subject to a deposit of £1,500, £2,000 or £3,000 depending on the number of claims.

A deposit of £500 is sufficiently high. If somebody has recently lost their job and wants to take a case to a tribunal, asking them to put up a £500 deposit that they might not get back is a sufficient barrier to stop them taking what employers claim are cases that have no prospect of success and that are only there to waste their time. I think that £500 is sufficient. Going down the road where £500 can be applied to each claim instead of to each claimant would present a massive barrier to people who are trying to access justice.

I hear what the Minister has said about any future changes needing to come to the House for approval before they take effect, but the reality is that we are being pushed down a road where workers' rights will be eroded. In the second group of amendments, we will deal with other issues that affect the rights of working people but, in this group, we are dealing with the rights of people —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will surely, Fra. Go ahead.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The point that you are making is important. I accept that the Minister has said that he is leaving room for changes down the line, but who is to say who will be back here in the near future and whether they will hold to the promises that are being made by the present Minister? When we discussed this, one of the things that we were concerned about was the fact that there are many people who, by the very fact that they will have to pay the deposits, will shy away from taking a case. Justice is being denied to people who wish to go down that road.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention and I agree with him. There are enough problems with people being unable to get to a tribunal. Imposing multiple deposits on claimants would be a regressive step and we should not allow it. I accept that the Minister has said that it is not in the Bill, but it is allowed for. By passing our amendment, the Assembly would write into the Bill that multiple deposits would be prohibited. That would be a good step for us to take. It would send out a message that we will not implement any changes to tribunals that would dissuade or discourage people from taking cases, beyond having to pay a £500 deposit. We have tabled an amendment to put a rule into the Bill that multiple deposits would not be allowed. That is a fairly pragmatic approach.

The Minister has carried out a consultation on multiple deposits and other changes to tribunals. I might be misquoting him — it is a good thing that he has the chance to respond at the end — but I think he said that there was no evidence to support the introduction of multiple deposits. I do not see why some are opposing that change when there is no evidence to support the introduction of multiple deposits. In essence, they are a bad thing. As I have said on several occasions, they deny people access to justice, and that is not the purpose of the Bill.

Anything over £500 would be a substantial sum of money for people to pay. When you go to an employment tribunal to have your employment rights enshrined, you are not entitled to legal aid and, as a result of European directives, case law and a range of appeal decisions, it has become so legalistic and complex that most people need a solicitor or barrister to represent them. Most employers feel that they need that representation and, when one side goes in with a solicitor or barrister, those who make claims often feel that they need to do it as well. So, on top of the issue of deposits, there is also the cost of going to employment tribunals. I am very keen for us to send out a message through the Bill that we will not allow multiple deposits. It is all well and good for the Minister to say that it is not a proposal on the table, but it might come back at some stage. If we make the amendment, it will stop any future Minister trying to bring in a regulation that would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as primary legislation.

I accept that this proposal has not been subject to much, if any, scrutiny. It did not go through a consultation process apart from the one carried out by the Minister, in which no evidence was found that introducing multiple deposits was a good thing. It does not protect anybody and does not give employers better rights; all it does is introduce yet another barrier for workers trying to get to a tribunal to access justice.

The Minister, in his opening remarks, claimed that it was premature to close off the options for multiple deposits. I think that I speak for a significant number in the Chamber when I say that I will never support the introduction of multiple deposits to employment tribunals. It would be good to hear the Minister say that. He says that he does not want to close off the option: can he say that, in the future, he will not support the introduction of multiple deposits? We could have a situation in which a majority of MLAs supported their introduction. We heard Mr Buchanan teeter on the edge of being in favour of it, and we know there are conflicting views on the subject. Maybe he is taking the line of the employers who really want to abolish fair employment and industrial tribunals of any nature so that workers do not have any right to recourse through the legal system. I know that that is what some employers want, but I hope that not too many MLAs would adopt such a position.

I say to the Minister that affirmative resolution would be an improvement. I am glad that he has accepted the rationale that the Committee put forward, but it would be a mistake for the Assembly not to have a clause prohibiting the use of multiple deposits. That would be a very slippery road to go down, denying people the right to go to an employment or industrial tribunal in order to get back pay, to get an unfair dismissal overturned or for any other reason.

We all see how employment rights are being eroded all the time. It is important that we protect workers at every opportunity. This is not about making a change; it is about keeping what is currently enshrined in legislation. I am not saying that, at this stage, we should give workers additional rights; I am saying that we maintain what we have at present and do not allow a situation to develop in which former employees trying to take to a tribunal a case against an employer who, they feel, has treated them illegally are forced to pay a deposit of several thousand pounds just to get their day in court.

That is all I have to say on this group of amendments. I hope that the Minister has reflected on that and look forward to his response to the comments made.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As a new member of the Employment and Learning Committee, I come to this late. On behalf of SDLP Members, I express our appreciation to the Minister, the Department and the members of the Committee. Even from reading the genesis of the Bill and what has happened over the last few years, I know that considerable time, effort and energy has gone into it, and we would like to put that on record.

We made a number of points at Second Stage about the Labour Relations Agency, particularly on neutral assessment. Under the Bill, the LRA would be required to establish a neutral assessment service that, by agreement, could give disputing parties an idea of how their case might be decided should they not resolve it between them. It seems that, as stakeholders such as the Equality Commission expressed, an extra layer of relatively informal adjudication would serve only to protect employers from a burdensome process. We are glad, therefore, that clauses 4 and 8 may be removed and that the amendments seem to be more rational mechanisms to provide for neutral assessment and good practice. The question that still needs to be answered is whether that facilitation of early dispute resolution is as fair to those taking a case to tribunal as it is to employers.

We are happy that amendment Nos 7 and 8 and the new clauses providing for a review of early conciliation and neutral assessment are to be included. It is right and proper that we examine whether this addition is working in the interests of employers and claimants.

The LRA addition is not the only change to tribunal procedure. The Bill includes enabling powers that relate to tribunal rules, and it brings tribunal rules and regulations into line with current practice, permitting the chairmen of employment tribunals to be referred to as employment judges. Secondly, it includes enabling powers to allow the Department to specify in employment tribunal rules the additional circumstances in which a tribunal may order a party to pay a deposit in order to continue with proceedings. That measure is intended to attach a consequence to bringing claims or responses that have little prospect of success.

What again may be apparent in the second stage of the tribunal process is the potential for a greater burden on the claimant. As the Bill is only at its Second Stage, it is important that the House consider the implications of that extra requirement on the claimant and whether it may prevent access to a fair resolution. That is particularly true when an extra amount of money is required; for example, a deposit to proceed with the tribunal. I share the concerns that Mr Flanagan and Mr McCann outlined around deposits and how that could be detrimental to the interests of achieving justice for those taking a tribunal. I am sure that, as public representatives, we have all dealt with people who have had difficult experiences and been treated badly in work situations. We would not want to have anything in the Bill that will present a problem in taking it forward in the interests of natural justice.

We welcome the amendments, and I look forward to speaking on the second group.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

As a member of the Employment and Learning Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak to some of the amendments in group 1. The Committee has been favourably disposed to the Bill, and a lot of work went into the scrutiny of it. I record my thanks to the Committee staff and all who have helped to bring the Bill to this stage.

The Bill has been some time in the making, but we accept that there is a need to modernise employment law. If we are to be a growing economy, we want to see good industrial relations, which can only be in the best interests of employers and employees. We must also ensure that we reduce bureaucracy to a minimum so that businesses can develop and expand without the need to attend to endless regulations and red tape.

I will now offer a few comments on the amendments in group 1, which come under the composite heading of "Tribunals and assessments". Clauses 1 to 4 deal with industrial tribunals, in particular early conciliation and neutral assessment. I very much support early conciliation and neutral assessment, because we must do all that we can to reduce confrontation and encourage resolution. That overall aim is not affected by the amendments. The Minister has indicated that he will oppose clauses 4 and 8 and that they will be replaced by new clause 9A, which is tabled as amendment No 6. New clause 9A will provide the Department rather than the Labour Relations Agency with the power to make regulations for the neutral assessment service. The Department believes that it will therefore be better able to prepare for the setting-up of that service. The regulations under new clause 9A will be made under the negative resolution procedure and will cover issues such as what the neutral assessment service will consist of and how it might deliver.

Amendment No 7 would introduce new clause 9B, which deals with the review of the early conciliation service one year after its introduction and then on a three-yearly basis. The clause needs to be slightly amended to address confidentiality issues, but that can be taken forward at Further Consideration Stage. Amendment No 8, which would introduce new clause 9C, is not being moved today, and I suspect that we will take that back to the Committee.

Amendment No 2 was tabled by the Minister in response to Committee concerns. It amends clause 5, which is one of the clauses covering industrial tribunals. It deals with the power to require a party to proceedings to pay a deposit. The amendment would ensure that regulations dealing with deposits are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and we welcome that change.

Amendment No 1 would amend clause 5 by preventing multiple deposits. I oppose that amendment, because clause 5 provides an enabling power, and regulations will be made in due course. We should not tie the Department's hands at this stage in the Bill in the way in which amendment No 1 would do.

Amendment No 3, tabled by the Minister, is a technical amendment to clause 7, which deals with the extension of time limits to allow for conciliation. It makes a necessary change to clause 7(1), which amends the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and will remove an obsolete reference to provisions that have now been repealed by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

Amendment No 5 relates to clause 9. It is also a departmental amendment and is similar to amendment No 2, which deals with industrial tribunals. Again, it has been tabled in response to Committee concerns about the need for affirmative resolution. It amends the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to ensure that any regulations that are made around deposits are done on the basis of affirmative resolution.

I also oppose amendment No 4, which is an amendment to clause 9. It does for clause 9 what amendment No 1 does for clause 5, and I oppose it for the same reasons as I oppose amendment No 1.

Amendment Nos 18 and 19 amend schedule 3 and are technical changes that simply tidy up references to provisions that have been repealed. I leave my remarks on group 1 there.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I will speak on group 1, and I thank the staff for all the help that they have given on the Bill so far. I support the Minister in opposition to clauses 4 and 8. I support amendment Nos 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19, and I will speak on amendment Nos 1 and 4.

The Committee was briefed by officials, who explained that there was no need for amendment No 1 as draft affirmative procedure would be used for regulations on deposits. The amendment would allow multiple appeals, which have the potential to be bogus and would potentially allow multiple appeals to go ahead without the appellant having to pay for them after the initial appeal. It could be costly and time-consuming for the Department and could be open to abuse. The amendment is ill thought-out.

On amendment No 4, which is basically the same, the Committee was briefed by officials, who explained that there was no need for the amendment as draft affirmative procedure would be used for regulations. As with amendment No 1 — I have to repeat myself, unfortunately — this amendment would basically allow multiple appeals, which have the potential to be bogus, and would allow appeals to go ahead without the appellant having to pay for them after the initial appeal. It could be costly to the Department and very time-consuming. The amendment is ill thought-out.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

One of the things that are quite strange in the debate is the point on affirmative resolution made by Mr Easton and by the Minister in his opening remarks. I was really struck by how we were making such a play to move from a negative resolution as suggested in, I think, amendment Nos 2 and 5. The Minister made a great play to Mr Flanagan and the supporters of their amendments, saying, "You do not need to bring this in. It is not necessary, because we will do it by order or by regulation, or it will come to the Assembly and you will be able to have it by affirmative resolution". Here is the interesting dilemma. Members have spoken and have said, "We are not really happy with the way that you are going to move on this issue. We do not think it is necessary, and then we are going to move to affirmative resolution". What is the difference? I have just been talking to Wallace High School, explaining to them the difference and explaining petitions of concern. Affirmative resolution means that you will have to get a positive "yes" vote to make a change. Of course, any vote that is positive "yes" can be opposed by a valid petition of concern. The movement from a negative resolution to a positive resolution means that you will be able to stop any changes. We are getting more stasis in the Chamber, and we will not be able to make amendments that we want to make.

I apologised to Mr Flanagan, who realised that I was not able to be in the Chamber to hear his contribution, and I read the Hansard report of the previous debate on the matter.

Members are rightly concerned about multiple claims and whether there will be some impediment. That tells me that many things in the Bill have not yet been resolved. We have said, "Do you know what? We will deal with that later under affirmative resolution and look at it in the new mandate", but I do not think that we will be able to do that.

I give notice that I will oppose the changes to affirmative resolution. I do not think that that is the right way to go forward. We should have the debate here and now. If Mr Flanagan can marshal his arguments, he should be in a position to win his debate. This is the proper way to do it rather than pushing it to another date in another way when there could be unforeseen circumstances.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. It is good that he acknowledges that he was not here for earlier contributions, because some Members highlighted the fact that the Minister can introduce a change to the system, and, if the Assembly does not agree, it is up to the Assembly to call that in and to try to overturn it, which presents considerable difficulty. The best way to make changes of this nature, which can be controversial and contentious, is through affirmative resolution, whereby, if the Minister wants to make that change, it should be done with the prior approval of the House instead of the House overturning his decision, which, as I am sure you will be concerned, would present the place in a very poor light.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I apologised for not being here. I thought that the debate might have run a little longer. In my discussions with Wallace High School, we listened to the debate in order to explain the implications of employment law for young people and our desire to get them jobs and employment in this part of the world.

The fundamental change from negative resolution to affirmative resolution brings petitions of concern into play. The Member raised the point, so he will be aware that our current set-up under the various agreements — the Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement and the Fresh Start Agreement — is that the Executive have primacy. If you are a Minister, you are given executive control. I am sure that the Member and his party recognise that fact, and, for better or worse, it was a hard-fought-for political solution. It is not generally the case that this place can overturn ministerial decisions. In fact, what we have seen is the repeated use of petitions of concern.

To avoid doubt, I raise that issue here and now. This is a classic case of the dog that does not bark. If it has no meaning, why are we making such an issue out of moving from negative resolution to affirmative resolution? Here is what will happen: it will be impossible for the House to change any of these regulations in the face of a petition of concern. That is not the right way forward. I would much prefer to have an argument, discussion or resolution on the various points. Mr Flanagan should be entitled to win his argument, if he and his colleagues can do so without having to rely on some procedural motion.

I have made my points on the issues that I want to deal with. I cannot help but think that some things that we are trying to achieve have been lost in the haste to push the legislation through. Perhaps I will deal with those when I speak on the second group of amendments.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

In light of the constructive way that most Members approached the debate on this group of amendments, I will try to be relatively brief. I thank the Chair, members and staff of the Committee for the speedy and efficient way that they addressed the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Chair referred to several records that have been made. The Committee will no doubt be very much aware of those not only in the context of this Assembly but in the context of other legislatures around the world and how quickly it has dealt with the Bill. That was done without accelerated passage.

In reference to what Mr McCrea said, I would not suggest for one moment that we have rushed the Bill. The review of employment law started in 2012, and there has been a lot of discussion about issues in and outside the Bill in many fora. Today, we have issues on which it is possible to build a consensus across the House, and it is in that spirit that we should consider the amendments. In particular, the Committee has approached the Bill in a very pragmatic manner. There are issues for another day, and we will come back to them in due course.

I recognise the Chair and the Committee's understanding of the potential problem with confidentiality in proposed new clause 9C(3)(c). No doubt we will address that fully at Further Consideration Stage when we tidy everything up. I think that there is a mutual recognition that it is something that we need to address. I thank him for recognising the approach that we are taking to multiple deposits, which, it is probably fair to say, was the main issue of discussion in the House this morning in relation to this set of amendments.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Buchanan, set the context very well when he spoke about the balance to be struck between the different perspectives on the benefits or otherwise of multiple deposits. It is worth stressing at this point that the Bill is supported by employers and employee organisations, that is, trades unions. They approach the issue from different perspectives, but there is a common understanding that the Bill works on everyone's behalf. This is not zero-sum politics, where a win for one side is a loss for the other. Of course, there are other issues that the interest groups want to be considered, and over which there are major differences of opinion, that are not in the Bill. Members are very much aware of them, and perhaps we will touch on some of them when debating the second group of amendments later.

I appreciate Mr Flanagan's comments on how the Bill has been taken forward. He acknowledged that the Department and I did not at any stage consider the introduction of fees for access to tribunals. I take issue, however, with his premise that, in some way, there is an agenda to compromise the rights of workers or that we are walking along a very fine edge. That is not my agenda. What we are trying to do is to find a system of employment relations for Northern Ireland that works in the interests of employers and employees more efficiently and effectively. Going to a tribunal, as is people's right and will always be their right, is the end point of the spectrum of interventions. It is in everyone's interest to address disputes further back along the spectrum, starting with prevention, which is about good practice in the workplace. Where disputes arise, you want to address them as much as possible through the different alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and that is what we are trying to put forward in the Bill. That is the ethos behind the Bill.

There has been a lot of discussion, therefore, of the issue of multiple deposits and the shift. It has been the practice to handle multiple deposits through regulation. There is always a tension between what goes into a Bill and what is addressed through regulations. It is important for Members to bear in mind the distinction between a Bill, which is there for quite a long period — opportunities to amend primary legislation are fairly infrequent — and regulations, which can be changed more frequently. That is a factor in determining the level of detail that should go into a Bill. Issues to do with deposits have traditionally been viewed as suitable for regulations.

Obviously, and this touches on the comments made by Mr McCrea, if you move from handling something through negative to affirmative resolution, that changes the balance and how it moves through the House. If you move to something having to be done by affirmative resolution, there is a risk because, when you are looking for active approval of the Assembly, a petition of concern could block a proposal from a Minister. However, that is a reflection of where we are in the Assembly. People want to change that in some ways, but that is the reality of the need to build a consensus around issues where people feel that there are potential breaches of people's particular interests.

That said, moving now to put in the Bill the outcome around multiple deposits is prejudicing the policy process that we are still undertaking. That process has not really been given full Committee scrutiny. In some ways, Mr Flanagan was implying that this was the sounder way of going about it. What is proposed today is actually curtailing people's rights and opportunities to have scrutiny of this issue. With a switch from negative to affirmative resolution, and indeed Mr Flanagan was to the forefront of this, the Committee has been very keen to ensure that the safeguard is in place that any decision will have to have the full approval of the Assembly, rather than adoption of the negative procedure as was the original draft of how we approach these things.

With that, there are full safeguards for the Assembly. Nothing is lost from the rights of the Assembly if it waits until the policy is fully evolved and full scrutiny has occurred. Frankly, to move ahead today with the amendments from Mr Flanagan and his colleagues would cut off any discussion of that process. That process, in all probability, will suggest that we do not have multiple deposits, but it is important that we listen to the stakeholders in our wider society and ensure that we find the right overall balance in how we address these issues. I stress that they are all about having a proper equilibrium between how we address the interests of employers and the interests of employees within a system.

We are doing all that we can, and we have avoided many of the changes in Great Britain. One of the pluses of having devolution in Northern Ireland is that we avoid many of the things that have impacted on the rights of individual workers that we have seen elsewhere. At the same time, we have to recognise that the process of tribunals can be very lengthy and very stressful. For companies, it can be a diversion of staff and other resources. For those taking cases, it can be a very difficult process as well. It can be a financially risky process, particularly if people feel obliged to spend some of their own resource on getting legal assistance. Therefore, it is in people's interests that we try to find that balance and try to invest as much as we can in alternative dispute resolution. I again urge the House to reject the amendments from Mr Flanagan and his colleagues, not because we necessarily disagree with where they are going but because they are not necessary at this stage and because, after the full process is done, the Assembly will still have exactly the same ability to influence an outcome.

Comments were also made on neutral assessment, first by the Chair and also by Mr Diver. I stress again that we are not moving away from neutral assessment. It has to be very much part of the spectrum of the different interventions that are available. We are simply moving from neutral assessment being telegraphed as something that the LRA would offer to a situation, with the amendments tabled today, whereby neutral assessment is there but we have a process to determine in which of the different types of bodies that are involved in employment relations it best sits. That could be the LRA. Equally, it could be the Tribunals Service, which is already piloting such an intervention, or a set of third parties.

I think that that covers most of the comments that were made at this stage. We look forward to moving to the second group in due course.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated the Minister's opposition to clause 4.

Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, put and negatived. Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5 (Power to require party to proceedings to pay deposit)

Amendment No 1 proposed:

In page 5, line 10, after "add “" insert

"(irrespective of the number of heads of claim)". — [Mr Flanagan.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 5, line 12, at end insert

"(2) In Article 25 of that Order (regulations and orders)?—

(a) in paragraph (1), for “All” substitute “Subject to paragraph (1A), all”;

(b) after paragraph (1) insert?—

“(1A) Regulations which include provision under Article 11(2)(a) shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 (Extension of time limit to allow conciliation)

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 7, leave out line 37 and insert

"for “to Article 46A” substitute “and to Articles 46A and 46B”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 disagreed to.

Clause 9 (Power to require party to proceedings to pay deposit)

Question, That amendment No 4 be made, put and negatived.

Amendment No 5 made:

In page 8, line 39, at end insert

"(2) In Article 104 of that Order (regulations and orders)?—

(a) in paragraph (1), after “101(1)” insert “and no regulations which include provision under Article 84B(2)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (2), after “Schedule 1” insert “and regulations which include provision under Article 84B(2)(a)”.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 6 made:

After clause 9 insert

"Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

Assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings

9A.—(1) The Department may by regulations make provision for a prescribed person to provide relevant parties with an assessment in accordance with the regulations of prescribed matters in connection with any tribunal proceedings which might be or have been instituted by one or more of those parties.

(2) In this section?—

“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations under this section;

“relevant parties” means such persons as may be prescribed;

“tribunal proceedings” means prescribed proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the Fair Employment Tribunal.

(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 7 made:

After clause 9 insert

"Review of early conciliation

9B.—(1) The Department must review the operation of?—

(a) Articles 20 to 20C of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

(b) Articles 46B and 88ZA to 88ZC of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; and

(c) the amendments made by Schedules 1 and 2,

at the end of the period of one year beginning with the commencement of this section.

(2) The Department shall, having consulted with relevant stakeholders including employers, lay the findings of this review in a report to the Assembly.

(3) The report shall in particular include?—

(a) a synopsis of consultation responses;

(b) an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of these provisions;

(c) the number of cases overall, the number dealt with by early conciliation, the length of time taken for each and the outcome of each;

(d) any savings directly attributable to the introduction of these provisions.

(4) The Department shall also review and report as in subsections (2) and (3) at the end of the period of three years beginning with the coming into operation of early conciliation.". — [Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I will not call amendment No 8 as it is mutually exclusive with opposition to clauses 4 and 8, neither of which stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 9, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 10 to 17, which deal with information, employment rights and traineeships. I call the Minister for Employment and Learning to move amendment No 9 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No 9:

In page 10, line 28, after "Assembly" insert

"or to the Secretary of State for laying before both Houses of Parliament".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 10: After clause 16 insert

"Gender pay and disclosure of information

Gender pay gap information

16A.—(1) Employers must, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Department under this section, publish?—

(a) information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees; and

(b) details of the methodology used to calculate any statistics contained in the information.

(2) Where there are differences in the pay of male and female employees, an employer must publish an action plan to eliminate those differences.

(3) A copy must be sent to all employees and any trade union recognised by the employer.

(4) This section does not apply to an employer who has fewer than 50 employees.

(5) The regulations must prescribe?—

(a) descriptions of employer;

(b) descriptions of employee;

(c) how to calculate the number of employees that an employer has;

(d) a standardised method for calculating any differences in the pay of male and female employees;

(e) descriptions of information;

(f) a requirement that information include statistics on workers within each pay band in relation to:

(i) ethnicity, and

(ii) disability;

(g) the time at which information is to be published; and

(h) the form and manner in which it is to be published.

(6) The first regulations under this section must be made by 10 November 2016.

(7) Regulations under subsection (5)(g) may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently than at intervals of 12 months or less frequently than at intervals of 36 months.

(8) The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations?—

(a) to be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale for every employee;

(b) to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed.

(9) The reference to a failure to comply with the regulations includes a reference to a failure by a person acting on behalf of an employer.

(10) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Department must, in consultation with trade unions, publish a strategy including an action plan, on eliminating differences in the pay of male and female employees.". — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 11: In clause 17, page 11, leave out lines 43 to line 6 on page 12 and insert

"“(4) The Department must make arrangements under this section for providing careers guidance for such persons as the Department considers appropriate.

(5) The guidance must?—

(a) be provided in an impartial manner; and

(b) be in the best interests of the person receiving it.

(5A) The Department may by regulations make such provision concerning arrangements under subsection (4) as the Department considers appropriate, including provision requiring the guidance to be delivered or otherwise provided by a person who has such qualifications as the Department may determine.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 12: In clause 18, page 12, leave out line 18 and insert

"must be made under this section for providing apprenticeships and traineeships". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 13: In clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert

"(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may make provision as to the components of apprenticeships and traineeships.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 14: After clause 18 insert

"Qualifying period of employment

Qualifying period of employment

18A.—(1) Article 124 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (right to written statement of reasons of dismissal) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (3), for “one year” substitute “two years”.

(3) In Article 140 of that Order (qualifying period of employment), for “one year” substitute “two years”?—

(a) in paragraph (1); and

(b) in paragraph (2).". — [Mr B McCrea.]

No 15: After clause 18 insert

"Zero hour contracts

Zero hour contracts

18A.—(1) Zero hour contracts are prohibited.

(2) Zero hours contracts means a contract of employment or other worker's contract under which?—

(a) the undertaking to do or perform work or services is an undertaking to do so conditionally on the employer making work or services available to the worker, and

(b) there is no certainty that any such work or services will be made available to the worker." — [Mr Flanagan.]

No 16: In clause 19, page 12, line 36, at end insert

"(8) An order under paragraph (7) may exclude the application of paragraph (2) in relation to any sum increased or decreased by the order for such period as may be specified in the order.". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

No 17: In clause 20, page 13, line 31, after "only" insert "by or". — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will deal first with amendment No 9, which is to clause 14. Clause 14 as introduced establishes regulation-making powers that require a prescribed person for the purposes of article 67F of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to produce an annual report on disclosures. During consultation on that issue, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is a prescribed person for the purpose of matters that engage human rights, was supportive of the policy proposal but was concerned that a requirement for it to report to the Assembly could be outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. Having reviewed the legal advice and engaged with the Secretary of State on the issue, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to bring forward this amendment so that, where a report relates to the functions of a body in the reserved field, it will be sent to the Secretary of State for laying before Parliament, rather than to the Department for laying before the Assembly. I ask Members to support that amendment to take account of the fact that certain arrangements remain outside the remit of the House. Without it, my Department will be unable to develop regulations that apply to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or any other body that is in a similar situation with regard to accountability to the devolved institutions.

Turning to amendment No 11, which relates to clause 17, I acknowledge at the outset the context of the Committee’s inquiry into careers policy and practice and its desire for a statutory duty in relation to the provision of advice. As introduced, clause 17 enables my Department to make regulations concerning the impartial provision, by suitably qualified persons, of careers guidance that is identified as being in the best interests of those receiving it. I have been asked by the Employment and Learning Committee to strengthen the clause by bringing forward an amendment that converts the enabling power to make regulations concerning careers guidance into a duty on the Department to do so. Having given the issue some thought, I am proposing a revision that meets the Committee’s understandable desire to see action taken in that important area. The amended clause will require the Department to make arrangements to provide careers guidance for such persons as it considers appropriate. Such guidance must be provided in an impartial manner and be in the best interests of the person receiving it.

The new obligations on the Department do not require regulations to be introduced. The Department must simply comply with the requirements. However, the revised clause will still contain a regulation-making power. That is to enable the Department to deal in more detail with the provision of careers guidance, including the means of delivery and the qualifications of the persons developing or delivering it The clause commits the Department to taking action and extends flexibility to flesh out requirements in regulations, where appropriate. The Committee’s proposal will help to strengthen clause 17, and I hope that Members will support the amendment.

I also propose to amend clause 18, which deals with apprenticeships, to include provision in relation to traineeships. That is the purpose of amendment Nos 12 and 13. Traineeships will be the new professional and technical training offer for 16- to 24-year-olds, as articulated in the recently published youth training strategy, ‘Generating our Success’. A completed traineeship will provide an individual with a qualification equivalent to five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. The purpose of including a reference to apprenticeships and traineeships in the clause is to recognise that, while complementary parts of the new professional and technical training system, they are different offerings. Traineeships will be available in professional and technical occupations at skills level two. Apprenticeships will be available in professional and technical occupations from skills level three to skills level eight.

If amendment No 13 is agreed in addition to amendment No 12, the clause will also specify that regulations may make provision about the components of apprenticeships or traineeships. Components are the various elements that need to be in place for a particular training programme to be recognised as an apprenticeship or traineeship. The components will ensure that there are clearly defined requirements with respect to apprenticeships and traineeships and will ensure a high-quality offer and consistency across different occupational areas.

I now want to draw Members' attention to amendment No 16, which affects clause 19. Clause 19, as introduced, amends article 33 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. As this is a somewhat technical issue, some context will be helpful. Article 33 of the 1999 Order requires my Department to make an order updating the maximum amounts of certain awards of industrial tribunals and other amounts payable under employment legislation for each year in which there have been changes to the retail prices index (RPI) between one September and the next. The amounts that must be updated include the maximum compensatory award for a finding of unfair dismissal and the weekly rate used for calculating statutory redundancy payments. Clause 19, as drafted, amends article 33(2) of the 1999 Order so that future changes to the relevant limits are to be made on 6 April each year, rather than, as is the current arrangement, "as soon as practicable". That provides greater certainty about when changes will be applied. Clause 19 also modifies the rounding calculation set out in article 33(3) of the 1999 Order so that changes in amounts are rounded up or down to the nearest pound. That ensures that they more accurately track the rate of inflation as measured by the RPI. Finally, clause 19 introduces a new paragraph into article 33 — article 33(7) — specifying that my Department may at any time make an order increasing or decreasing sums dealt with under article 33 without reference to the RPI. That will give the Department flexibility to review rates in a more fundamental way but with the safeguard that any order of that kind has to be laid in draft before, and approved by, the Assembly before becoming operational.

Since the Bill was introduced, there has been a realisation that, if amounts are revised by an order of this kind, there may be no need to make a further order that is linked to the RPI for that year. Amendment No 16 resolves that issue by providing that there is no need to make an RPI-linked order under article 33(2) where an order is made under the new article 33(7).

Amendment No 17 affects clause 20. Again, allow me to provide some background. Clause 20 introduces a new article 90B into the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, prohibiting the disclosure of information relating to a worker, employer or trade union that the Labour Relations Agency holds in connection with performing its duties. Article 90B(2) specifies the circumstances in which the prohibition does not apply. For example, it does not apply if the disclosure is made for the purposes of a criminal investigation, or in a way that means that no one to whom the information relates can be identified. Article 90B(4) of the order makes a breach of the prohibition a criminal offence, punishable by a fine. Article 90B(5) provides that the prosecution of such an offence requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Following discussions with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Department has determined that a minor amendment to the wording is necessary to provide the PPS with increased flexibility in taking cases of this kind forward. The change will allow the director or a member of staff, on the director's behalf, to institute proceedings. That is consistent with the approach taken by the PPS to a range of issues.

I will now say a few words about a number of proposed amendments that have been tabled by Members, and which deal with matters that are not currently provided for in the Bill. Amendment No 10 has been tabled by Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms McGahan. The amendment introduces clause 16A, which requires my Department to make regulations obliging employers to publish information dealing with gender pay imbalances. Where such imbalances exist, the clause requires employers to publish an action plan to eliminate them. The clause also requires my Department to publish an action plan on eliminating gender pay differentials. That is the essence of the clause.

That is an important policy area. The amendment essentially replicates section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, which applies in Great Britain only, albeit the relevant regulations have not yet been enacted. The Department with lead policy responsibility for gender pay is the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. From May, the responsibility will pass to the new Department for Communities. At no point does the proposed clause 16A define "Department" which, in accordance with clause 25, must, therefore, be read as a reference to the Department for Employment and Learning and in future, therefore, the Department for the Economy. It also creates specific timelines for the introduction of regulations, which may prove to be unrealistic, especially with elections coming up, the creation of a new Department and the need for the Department to do the necessary policy work and consultation from a standing start.

In Northern Ireland, gender discrimination on the basis of pay is prohibited by EU law and by two separate but related domestic statutes: the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The former applies to contractual pay, and the latter covers non-contractual issues, such as recruitment, training, promotion, dismissal and the allocation of benefits. There is no legal requirement in either piece of legislation for employers to publish information about the pay of their employees. Engagement with OFMDFM officials suggests that they are not aware of any recent discussion on the issue, nor are there any recent proposals to introduce such a requirement.

An Equality Commission code of practice published in 2013 provides practical guidance for employers on how to promote equality of opportunity and avoid sex discrimination in pay structures. The code does not itself impose legal obligations, but it gives general guidance to employers regarding their legal obligations under the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The code is, however, admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Act.

An OFMDFM statistics and research branch publication entitled 'Gender Equality Statistics 2015 Update' contains statistics on pay and earnings that show that in 2014 the average median full-time gross weekly earnings for a male were £460·50 compared with £444·40 for a female. Given the clear differential between male and female weekly earnings, I consider that the purpose behind the amendment is a positive one. However, it has not been raised with my Department throughout the preparations for the Bill, it was not raised at Committee Stage and no preparatory policy considerations have been undertaken, consultations carried out or impact assessments conducted. It is also not something on which the Executive have agreed a position or that we should approach in a rushed or ad hoc manner.

I think that Members will be in agreement that we want to see the elimination of gender pay differentials. I do not believe that is in dispute. As a Department, that is not our current responsibility, so as Minister for Employment and Learning, I cannot take a formal view on the matter in that regard. It is something that is very much in the hands of the Assembly. However, I am personally sympathetic to the intent of the amendment. Perhaps, given some of the potential pitfalls that I have raised so far, I suggest that the proposers may wish to opt not to move the amendment today and to table a revised version at Further Consideration Stage.

I turn now to amendment number 14. The new clause 18A that Mr McCrea is proposing through the amendment would increase from one to two years the period for which an individual must be employed before having the right to make a claim to an industrial tribunal of unfair dismissal. As I indicated at Second Stage, my Department has consulted extensively on the matter, and I am satisfied that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to support what would be a very significant change to our system of employment protections. I appreciate that there are strong views in favour of changing the unfair dismissal qualifying period. However, there are also strong views opposing change. Without wanting to oversimplify the matter, employer organisations have tended to support a change, while employee representatives have opposed it.

It is clear that there is no political consensus on the issue. Unfair dismissal is a very serious matter. It can affect an individual's livelihood, future job prospects, physical and mental health and sense of self-worth. In the absence of clear evidence and support for a move away from the present position at this time, I cannot support the new clause.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that, last week or the week before, the Minister was overseas helping to try to attract investors to Northern Ireland to create jobs. From his experience of working alongside the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment or, indeed, Invest Northern Ireland, does he understand their view on whether employers, when they are looking to invest in Northern Ireland, look at more flexibility to encourage them to create jobs and, indeed, whether smaller, family-run companies will be more likely to create new jobs if the risk of doing so is diminished by giving them more flexibility when it comes to unfair dismissal?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his comments. Maybe that is slightly jumping ahead of some of the things I was going to say. First of all, with regard to my inward investment efforts, I have not really received much representation about employment law issues. It is, however, something that is cited by employer organisations as part of their concern at this time. It is fair to say, however, that the evidence base is not yet established. I will move on, but I will just say that the issue does not die today, so we are not in the situation where we have to take a decision on it either way at this moment in time. Looking at our competitive position internationally, I would say that the qualifying period for collective redundancies where more than 100 redundancies are being made is probably a bigger issue in how we stand out compared with international practice. That includes both our neighbours, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Picking up on what Mr Ross said and more generally, I want to stress that, as I said at Second Stage, rejecting change now does not rule it out for the foreseeable future. If there is clear evidence and a degree of consensus to support it — there is not at present — a change to the qualifying period can be made through secondary legislation. I will retain an open mind on that issue and encourage other Members to do so.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Can you clarify whether that secondary legislation would be agreed via affirmative or negative resolution?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

We are about to come to that. It is by confirmatory procedure, moving to affirmative procedure. Clause 21 modifies the procedure for making such secondary legislation in that it ensures that no change can be made without the prior approval of the Assembly.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I want to clarify something about the move to affirmative resolution. What the Minister said raises the possibility of a petition of concern stopping the issue. His assertion that the matter is not finished could be open to a different interpretation — I shall put it that way — in that I think that this will be the end of the matter. If we vote no to my amendment and accept affirmative resolution for change, that is the end of it for ever and a day; we will not get it through. We should maybe address the issue today.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The point that the Member makes applies as much to what is happening today in that the Assembly could very easily table a petition of concern against Mr McCrea's amendment. That situation has not arisen today, for whatever reason. Members will know that I set a very high bar for when petitions of concern should be used, but that could well have happened in relation to Mr McCrea's amendment. We will have a democratic vote on that and perhaps a democratic vote in the context of a future Minister making a recommendation through draft resolutions to change the qualifying period. I do not think that we are any better or worse off through not having the amendment agreed today than we would be if we left it to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I want to make it clear that we propose to move from the current situation where it is done through a confirmatory procedure to the use of the affirmative procedure. That provides safeguards because, as the situation presently exists, any Minister could take a decision that might ultimately not be agreed to by the Assembly but would nevertheless remain in place for a short time until the Assembly voted on the issue. That would, at the very best, create confusion and, at the very worst, create chaos in employment law. That is why we are tightening it up and making it the affirmative procedure. Under both the confirmatory and affirmative procedures, there has to be a positive vote in the Assembly. In that context, the situation does not change in any respect.

I stress that, given the degree of sensitivity around the issue, we should approach it with the ambition of at least trying to get consensus in the Assembly. It may well be that, as we look to employment relations and employment law issues as a package, we will sometimes see that it makes sense to liberalise something in one direction at the same time as we look to put in place other protections elsewhere. That is perhaps a scenario down the line, and we could see some of these issues moving ahead in that way. I stress that the evidence is not yet established on this. However, I certainly retain an open mind, and I hope others will do so as well. The Assembly may well wish to return to the issue in the future; indeed, a future Minister for the Economy may wish to move in that respect and table regulations to the Committee and the Assembly and see what happens in that regard.

I come to amendment No 15. By way of the amendment, Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms McGahan propose the adoption of new clause 18A, which would prohibit the use of zero-hours contracts, as defined in that clause. I explained at Second Stage that I support reform of zero-hours contracts. However, I cannot support this clause.

It is a complex issue, to which a nuanced approach is necessary. We are seeing increased casualisation in the labour market in Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions. Zero-hours contracts are one example of that increased casualisation. They may work for some businesses in which flexibility is important. For some workers, they also may be beneficial, and that has been demonstrated through various surveys. For others, they are regarded as being exploitative, where there is uncertainty over pay and hours and potential impacts on family life and benefits, such as accessing mortgages.

There is a strong case that our employment law should keep up with employment practice. Therefore, there should be proportionate regulation. In the proposals that I originally had in mind, I wanted to see an approach developed that would support the responsible use and regulation of contracts of that kind and that could tackle the abuse of such arrangements without eliminating reasonable flexibility and choice. My Department consulted on proposals around zero-hours contracts in 2014 and put to the Executive in February 2015 a paper proposing a range of progressive measures to regulate the use of contracts of that kind.

The proposed reforms were more radical than the recent measures in Great Britain. They went well beyond simply banning exclusivity clauses, which affect only a small minority of those on zero-hours contracts, with the potential also for the creation of a statutory code and rights to request a regular employment contract after a prescribed period. I regret that no agreement was reached at the Executive on the issue. It is for others to explain why that was the case.

What is proposed today in amendment No 15 is an outright ban on zero-hours contracts. There has been no public consultation on an outright ban. The Committee for Employment and Learning has not yet had the opportunity to have detailed consideration and scrutiny of the issues. There has been no assessment of the potential impacts on business or on opportunities for employment. Even without a detailed assessment, however, it is clear that an outright ban would significantly impact on our economy, affecting many businesses and those whom they employ. At the same time as addressing abuse, it would eliminate what currently works for employer and employee. The amendment lacks the kind of proportionate approach that I originally wanted to pursue.

Any realistic opportunity for considering that important issue during the present mandate has now gone. There needs to be time for the proper scrutiny of any measures around zero-hours contracts to ensure that they will do what they are designed to do; namely, to prevent unforeseen consequences, build consensus and secure buy-in from stakeholders. That is something that regrettably we do not yet have, or have the time to accomplish.

Indeed, some immediate risks could arise from an outright ban. Once any measure became law, employers would be faced with changing the nature of employment contracts, and that may not be feasible in every situation, particularly where flexibility is at a premium. There is therefore a prospect that an outright ban could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. My understanding is that the thousands of bank nurses contracted to the health trusts in Northern Ireland could be construed as being on zero-hours contracts. There are 10,000 names on the Northern Ireland Substitute Teacher Register (NISTR) who can also be regarded as being on zero-hours contracts, together with those on a number of such contracts in the further and higher education system. Therefore, the import of an outright ban on zero-hours contracts, if that were to be adopted, would be to create chaos in the health and education systems.

I also draw the attention of the House to a possible flaw in the definition of "zero hours contracts" in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 — from which the definition in the amendment is drawn — whereby a contract will come within the definition, and therefore the protections of legislation, only if a worker is obliged to accept work when it is made available.

I appreciate that those are important matters, and I look forward to hearing the views of Members on the amendments in the group.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before you sit down, Minister, can you confirm for the record that you formally moved amendment No 9?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Too late. You are on the speaking list.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No challenges here.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call, then, the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, Mr Robin Swann.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As Chairperson of the Committee, I welcome amendment No 11, which amends clause 17. Clause 17 concerns the provision of careers guidance. The Committee welcomed the Department's intention to introduce regulations providing impartial careers guidance on the back of the recommendations from the Committee's inquiry into careers education, advice, information and guidance. However, the Committee felt that the duty on the Department was not strong enough and asked the Department to strengthen clause 17. It agreed to do so, amending the wording from "The Department may make arrangements" to "The Department must make arrangements". The Committee is therefore content with the proposed amendment to clause 17.

Amendment Nos 12 and 13 amend clause 18, which concerns the provision of apprenticeships. The Committee welcomed the introduction of a statutory duty regarding the provision of apprenticeships but took on board the concerns of stakeholders who called for this power to be broader. The Department took on board these concerns and seeks to amend clause 18 to make provision for traineeships as well as apprenticeships. At that, the Committee is content with clause 18 as amended. The Committee supports the Bill and will watch closely how it is implemented.

During Committee Stage, the Committee did not have sight of amendment Nos 10, 14 or 15, so I will be speaking as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson for employment and learning. Amendment No 10 came as a surprise as it was not raised at any stage in Committee. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I am happy with the intent of this amendment, but I ask its proposers to take forward the offer that the Minister has made to bring forward the appropriate amendments to this current amendment, which would see it being more flexible and more user-friendly so that we would be able to support it and deliver the intent of this amendment. We are content to support the intention and the overall thrust of the amendment if it can be properly delivered at Further Consideration Stage.

The issue that amendment No 14 seeks to deal with was discussed in Committee, but, again, has been mentioned and contained in regulations. Mr McCrea said that issues do not have to die today, but I feel that, with this piece of legislation, neither the Committee nor the House has received the evidence or had the foresight to receive what was going to happen in regard to this amendment. I am also led to believe that, because of the concerns that have been raised, there may be moves to table a petition of concern on this amendment. I think that Mr McCrea has raised the issue of moving from draft affirmative to regulations being possibly brought about in the House today. Rather than the cut and thrust of the debate and the democratic process being brought forward, Mr McCrea, you have been the author of your own destiny in this case.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Before we move off that issue, the elephant in the room is that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is a big issue. It is something that people have very strong views on. I have to say that I am surprised that the Ulster Unionist Party, which I previously thought was a party that supported the conservative position, is now taking a different view from the one that it had taken before. I am sure that, as Mr Ross mentioned, there are many small owner-run businesses that have supplied evidence to him and his Committee and his party to say that this is a very serious issue. I am far from being a prophet of my own doom; I actually think that this is where we should be having the debate. This is what we want to do. If a petition of concern comes forward, that is the process, but we should have the debate front and central. This is important. This is not a knee-jerk reaction. This is something that we need a considered opinion on.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I fully agree with the Member's comments. He talks about the Ulster Unionist position, and I remember attending an Ulster Unionist group meeting where he and I had exactly the same conversation on whether we should move to two years rather than one year. At that stage, the party retained the one-year position, if I am correct. I think that he was Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee at that stage. When the first section of the Bill came forward, that was one of the issues that was raised. I think that the Member knows well my position and where we, as the Ulster Unionist Party, agreed our position at that time. The concerns of small employers and all of the rest of it were taken into consideration, and I think that that is where the Minister has given the opportunity here not to close the door on this. It will be unfortunate if a petition of concern does come down to bring that finality into this debate, because the abuse of petitions of concern in the House, which the Member has raised, has killed debate and continues to do so on this very issue and other issues.

We will be opposing amendment No 15. That is not because we do not want to see the abuse of zero-hours contracts ended. It is because we do not think that this amendment will bring about the intention that the Member sees in it. In regard to the concerns that have been mentioned, this amendment would introduce an outright ban on zero-hours contracts.

As Chair and Ulster Unionist spokesman on employment and learning, I know that concerns have been raised with regard to health bank nurses and supply teachers. Employers also raised concerns about what the amendment would deliver. One union, in particular, raised concerns about how the amendment would affect some of its employees and feels that the totality of zero-hours contracts and the problems that they bring about have not been fully addressed. That goes back to why the Bill was delayed for so long: this was one of the contentious issues on which the Executive parties could not agree. The opportunity to manage and bring about regulations on zero hours is not a problem for the House, but it was a problem that could not make its way out of the Executive.

The amendment is also somewhat lacking is in its definition of zero hours. Looking at it from a layman's point of view, I could see employers who wanted to abuse the system moving very quickly to annualised hours contracts and one-hour-a-year contracts. There are options that move away from the very tight definition that the Members have brought to the House. That is why we will oppose amendment No 15. That concludes my comments.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

In this group, I welcome amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13. Amendment No 11 deals with impartial careers guidance, and amendment Nos 12 and 13 not only deal with apprenticeships but take into account traineeships, which were not originally in the Bill.

As the Committee Chair said, amendment No 10 has come as something of a surprise, in that it never appeared before the Committee, and there was no discussion about it at any time in the Committee. The Committee is where it should have come to be scrutinised and debated. However, we as a party are of a mind to support the amendment, if it is moved. I have to add that, as the Minister said, changes need to be made to it, and we would like its supporters to take the opportunity to make those changes in order to make it more amenable.

Amendment No 14 changes the qualifying period from one year to two years. Members will know that opinion on the matter is much divided. A lot of people feel that it is a missed opportunity, and that was stated at Second Reading. The Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Engineering Employers' Federation were among those to express disappointment, saying that they felt that the Bill was a missed opportunity to extend the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. They argued that it would ensure Northern Ireland's competitiveness and encourage inward investment and indigenous growth, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. Opinion has been divided, but we see from the Engineering Employers' Federation and from all the folk involved in business that they are not really that divided on it. All say that it would be good to move from a one-year to a two-year period. We are, therefore, minded to support the amendment that the Member has brought to the House today.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps he disagrees with what his party colleague, the Member for East Antrim, said on the matter. I am talking about Mr Hilditch, not Mr Ross. At Second Stage, Mr Hilditch said:

"I support the idea of not following suit with the rest of the UK by deciding not to increase the qualifying period for unfair dismissals from one to two years." — [Official Report, Vol 111, No 2, p51, col 2].

What has happened to the DUP policy since that stage?

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

There was no consensus at Second Reading, and the Minister said that he would put forward a provision to deal with it. When we look at the issue before us, we see the strong concern coming from industry, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. If we do, it will be at our peril, and we will be the losers in the long term. That is one of the reasons why we are of a mind to support the amendment.

Amendment No 15 relates to zero-hours contracts. We will not support that; we will oppose it. There has been no consultation on an outright ban on zero-hours contracts or assessment of the potential economic and equality impacts of such a ban. Even in the absence of an impact assessment, it is clear that an outright ban on such contracts would undoubtedly have significant impacts on many businesses and those whom they employ. An outright ban, as suggested by some, would have a disproportionate impact on flexibility in the economy and potentially remove some employment opportunities. Furthermore, employers could use diverse new means to obtain a measure of flexibility that circumvent any legislative response to the current situation.

Zero-hours contracts work well in some cases, although we are not turning a blind eye to the fact that there are some cases where they do not work as well as they should. That is why, as the Chair of the Committee said, we are not saying that the matter should not be amended, looked at or talked about and changed in some form or other, but banning it outright would close the door on that and have a detrimental impact on many small and medium-sized businesses across Northern Ireland. Therefore, we will oppose the amendment.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time. The first Member to speak when we resume the debate will be Phil Flanagan.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Employment and Learning

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

We will start with listed questions. I have to tell Members that questions 5 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Newton asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for his assessment of the success of the employer-led apprenticeship programme compared to the programme-led apprenticeship scheme. (AQO 9580/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The new Northern Ireland apprenticeship strategy, Securing our Success, was published in June 2014, and the new youth training strategy, Generating our Success, was published in June 2015. Together, those strategies set out an ambitious programme of reform that has the potential to radically transform how professional and technical training is delivered.

My aim is to establish a world-class skills system that supports and meets the ambitions of our young people and provides Northern Ireland with a skills base capable of driving economic growth. Consistent with the best systems internationally, employers will be firmly in the lead of the reformed system. Through sector partnerships, they will work with curriculum experts to develop and agree the curriculum and content that will form the core of apprenticeships in each occupational area.

The new strategies are focused on raising quality, supporting a breadth of learning, underpinning progression and ensuring portability to deliver skills that will be recognised nationally and internationally as an exemplar. My Department is progressing with a number of projects that will allow the new system to be fully operational from September 2017.

Programme-led apprenticeships, which were introduced in 2009, were originally intended as a short-term contingency arrangement for apprentices who had been made unemployed as a result of the developing economic downturn. The aim was to provide participants with the knowledge, understanding and competence to work at a high level in their chosen occupation. Unfortunately, the downturn lasted much longer than was originally thought. The programme-led apprenticeship programme was successful in ensuring that young people continued to train at a time when there were no job opportunities. Fortunately, we are in a different place economically, and the new programme has been developed to support our economy and employers.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that very detailed answer. I acknowledge that he has recognised the potential of the employer-led scheme, which, I understand, results in 80%-plus of apprentices ending up in employment with their host company. Why are we not seeking to further expand the employer-led scheme? Employers recognise that they are meeting the needs of the industry, they have an input, and jobs are being offered to those who take part.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his comments. I assure him that our ambitions in that respect have no limits whatsoever. We want to see as much training happening through the apprenticeship system as possible. In essence, any professional or technical area can be addressed through the apprenticeship approach.

As the Member will appreciate, an apprenticeship is a job: someone will be in employment and will be trained on and off the job. Employers are in the driving seat. They determine where apprentice opportunities will be created, because, in essence, they are creating jobs. In the past, apprenticeships were awarded as part of contracts to suppliers who then tried to create jobs in particular areas. That is not the most efficient way of engaging with the market, particularly in evolving high-growth areas.

I suggest to the Member that we have the precise mechanisms in place. Our challenge is to make sure that we implement the strategy and get as much buy-in from employers as possible.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer to date. Employer-led apprenticeships were discussed at the Committee over a lengthy period. I raised some concerns. Whilst it is a good scheme, quite a number of people who would fit in the NEETs strategy would find it difficult to take part in it. How do you ensure that it does not move on and that those people are not left behind? I think that those are the types of people that Robin might have been talking about also.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his comments. It is important that we see our new apprenticeship system as part of a full spectrum of interventions. In addition to the new apprenticeship strategy, which covers level 3 through to level 8, we have the new youth training strategy at level 2. That is designed to address the needs of those young people who leave school, who perhaps do not yet have the qualifications to engage in the world of work, but who very clearly have that potential. Beyond that, we have to look at how we can assist those who are not eligible for the youth training scheme. That is why what we do with the NEETs strategy is so important, and that is supported by the European social fund at present.

In all those things, we have to recognise that we have to encourage people to progress and fulfil their potential, whatever that may be. We certainly have a challenge to ensure that we move as many people up the skills ladder as we possibly can. We know that, in the years to come, the profile of job opportunities will move more in the direction of intermediate and high-level skills and that opportunities for those with lower-level skills are set to diminish quite radically.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer to the initial question. Does he believe that, as changes to apprenticeships alter the image of apprenticeship opportunities, that will then engage parents in the belief that apprenticeships are a positive means of getting their sons and daughters into the job market?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I very much concur with what the Member is suggesting. It is important that we establish apprenticeships as a pathway with the same parity of esteem as the more traditional routes into college or university. Indeed, an apprenticeship will often be combined with college or university support, depending on the type of apprenticeship and the level at which it is offered. We should not see a hierarchy, whereby, for example, in the case of A levels, people who do not get into university then consider an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships have to be seen as being on a par. That is why we are developing a central service. We are trying to develop a portal that will market apprenticeship opportunities to young people. We are reforming the careers and guidance policy in Northern Ireland so as to ensure that we have a much more modern system, and one informed by where the opportunities lie in our economy.

We need to get the message out that people can often reach even greater heights, in society and where they are in the economy, through going down the apprenticeship route rather than the more traditional and familiar route. As the Member suggests, it is important that we convince parents of that change in approach. It is a much more lucrative approach, for the individual and for the economy as a whole.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister mentioned the new strategy for apprenticeships. What different outcomes can we expect from it?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. It is very much about how we can support the economy of Northern Ireland. Apprenticeships are not simply there as an end in themselves. It is about providing a much more efficient and effective way of delivering outcomes. We know that employers have often expressed frustration at not getting the particular skills that they require. This is the most effective way of remedying that situation. We also know, from the perspective of young people, that it will be the most reliable means by which they can find and sustain employment.

From looking around the European Union, we see that the societies that invest the most in apprenticeships and vocational training are those that are the most prosperous and have the lowest levels of youth unemployment. There are some very clear lessons for us to learn about what we can aspire to.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the local implications of the proposed apprenticeship levy. (AQO 9581/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced his intention to introduce an apprentice levy for all UK private- and public-sector employers from April 2017. The levy will be set at half of 1% of an employer's total wage bill. All eligible local business and public-sector organisations will pay the levy, and all employers with an annual pay bill of over £3 million per annum are expected to be net contributors. Levy proceeds are to be used specifically to fund apprenticeship training in England. Apprenticeship policy is a devolved matter, so Northern Ireland and the other devolved Administrations will receive a proportionate share of the proceeds.

Although I fully support the development of a wider range of apprenticeships in both the private and public sector, in many ways, the UK Government's proposed apprenticeship levy could be viewed as an additional tax to business not only in Northern Ireland but across the UK. Furthermore, it has the potential to undermine the different apprenticeship strategies in each of the devolved regions and cut across the policymaking prerogatives of each of the Administrations on what is a devolved matter.

Northern Ireland employers will be expected to pay the apprenticeship levy, and I wish to ensure a fair and equitable reimbursement of the moneys raised to Northern Ireland and the other devolved Administrations.

I have held discussions with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, with my counterparts in Scotland and Wales, and with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Skills Minister to press Northern Ireland's position and to ensure that any moneys due to Northern Ireland as a result of the levy's introduction are available to the new Department for the Economy to underpin the reforms that we are making to Northern Ireland's apprenticeship system and to support the wider skills needs of the economy.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Does he feel that the levy has the potential to undermine our local apprenticeship strategy and, if so, in what way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The strategy was designed by the Treasury as a means of raising additional revenue as part of its efforts to pay down the overall UK deficit. It is also based around the nature of the apprenticeships strategy in England, with very little consideration of the impact on the strategies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England, they are fixated on reaching the target of three million apprentices, and there is a danger that they end up badging any form of in-work training as an apprenticeship. You could have a bizarre situation where people are given certificates as an apprentice without ever knowing that they have been on an apprenticeship-type course. They are in a race around volume, with very little consideration of quality.

In the three devolved regions, we are very focused on building up quality brands around apprenticeships and ensuring that we address the particular needs of our economy. There will be a distortion in that, in Northern Ireland, some of our large companies will pay an amount of money in excess of their capacity to spend the equivalent on training. They will feel that, in essence, they have been taxed, and that will be viewed as anticompetitive. Frankly, it chips away at the positive intervention that we are making on lower-level corporation tax. We will see the potential for distortion for our local businesses and how they will spend their money and distortions in how the Northern Ireland Executive allocate their money. That will undermine our policy intent in what we are trying to do as a devolved Administration.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Which industries or sectors have proved most supportive of the levy?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am not aware of any sectors being supportive of the levy. It is, essentially, a tax on business, and it is not necessary. Our system for funding apprenticeships is not so fundamentally broken that we have to move to a levy. The genesis of this lies with the UK Treasury wanting to rebalance the UK's public finances and seeing this as one route by which they can do it. This will have major impacts on different types of business, and those impacts will be greater on some businesses than on others. If you are in a very high added-value business and you are paying, for example, quite high wage bills and have low training needs, the levy will hit you disproportionately. It may affect others to a lesser extent; for example, if you are in a business in a declining sector such as the steel industry in parts of the UK where there is no real ambition to hire new staff, there is not the same onus on training as there would be in other fast-growing sectors. Irrespective of the nature of a business, however, or the nature of that aspect of the economy, businesses will, nonetheless, be taxed on the basis of the overall size of their wage bill. There is deep concern across the board felt by the business organisations and the trade unions, and they are united in their opposition to it.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his confirmation that there will be a levy in 2017 on the various sectors of industry. Is this not really the first step in going back to the establishment of the sector skills councils or the industrial training boards?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I have sympathy with what the Member is saying. At first glance, the notion of a levy seems a much more benign concept than a tax. If we had a levy that was hypothecated towards skills interventions on a stand-alone basis, that would be a good intervention. The difficulty here is that this will be a levy on business that will be paid by businesses in Northern Ireland. At the same time, we will suffer a negative Barnett consequential because there will be a massive cut to the budget for BIS in London, which will filter down to the each of the devolved Administrations. What we are seeing is simply a shift in how training will be funded but in a way that distorts our policy preferences. It will add a significant degree of administration at the same time, which is a leakage of money out of the system that could be better spent at the front line on training.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

3. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when he will report on the completed consultation exercises for the employment strategy for people with disabilities and the Higher Education Big Conversation. (AQO 9582/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The consultation on the employment strategy for people with disabilities closed on 27 November 2015. A total of 58 responses were received: 32 from individuals and 26 on behalf of organisations. In addition, information was gathered at four public consultation events and two smaller events with specific disability groups. The consultation period has enabled all interested parties to submit official responses and provide feedback on each of the key themes and subsequent proposals. This has been broadly very positive, and a number of constructive suggestions have been made that will inform the final strategy document. The Committee for Employment and Learning has been briefed by my officials and provided with a detailed summary and findings. The same will apply to the disability strategic working group, which helped to develop the strategy.

The Big Conversation was launched on 15 September as an innovative approach to engaging with people about the sustainability of our higher education system. It concluded on 23 October. During the Budget process for 2016-17, I wrote to my Executive colleagues to report on the findings of the Big Conversation, to outline the extent of our funding challenges and to present a range of potential long-term solutions. That paper has led to some encouraging budget outcomes for that financial year, which I hope can prevent further cuts to higher education, despite an overall reduction in my Department's equivalent budget. However, looking ahead, it will not be enough simply to protect what we have in terms of skills provision, and further consideration of the longer-term options available to us will be required in the context of the next comprehensive spending review.

My Department expects to publish a response to both of these exercises in the coming weeks.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Perhaps the Minister could share with the House his thoughts on moving forward, in terms of the scope, the nature and the criteria and how he could undertake to collaborate, particularly with the Minister of Health, given that many people who have attended day-care facilities will be finding a reduction in their services and seeking to have more positive lives and meaningful support in the community through further and higher education.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is important that Members understand what the disability employment strategy seeks to do. It is about supporting people with employment and will be very focused on those employment outcomes. It will, however, be part of a wider landscape of interventions that will work in collaboration with other Departments, as we look to ensure a much more rounded outcome. In that respect, I draw attention, first of all, to the Executive subcommittee's work on learning disability transitions and the fact that an action plan is in place to facilitate that. Secondly, we have an economic inactivity strategy that focuses to a considerable extent on disability issues. Within that, projects have already been identified that involve collaboration between other Departments and the Department of Health on the type of outcome that the Member suggests. While that strategy has been agreed by the Executive, there has been no significant funding allocated to it as yet. That is a situation that I find troubling, and I encourage those who are in office after May to consider remedying that as a priority.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response so far. In the context of the Big Conversation, does the Minister acknowledge the absolute importance of part-time higher education and the significant impact that it has on the lives of individuals, in particular women, in providing opportunities?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I certainly acknowledge the importance of the part-time route for higher education and postgraduate study. The Member will be aware that, last year, we engaged in a consultation on different funding models for that, and I have informed the House about how, in principle, I wish those to go forward. I hope to confirm that position in the coming weeks, and discussions are ongoing with the Treasury and the Student Loans Company on how we can implement the preferred way forward on the back of that consultation.

We absolutely want to see an increase in part-time study. That ties in, for example, with the apprenticeships strategy as a means by which we will ensure that people are increasingly trained to the high level required by businesses and other organisations.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

These are more consultations, Minister, on an issue, especially in relation to people with disabilities, where action is long overdue. The Minister is aware of my support for organisations such as One Eighty Restaurant in my constituency of Upper Bann, which helps to provide employment opportunities for young people with disabilities. What reassurance will be provided to them and others that, rather than a consultation followed by another consultation, they will get the help and support that they desperately need?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I dare say that the Member makes some rather spurious comments. On the one hand, she asks me to reassure an organisation that its interests will be taken on board, and then she damns the process of consultation, which is designed for that very purpose. Organisations come forward with their points of view; the first draft of a strategy is published; and then we hear the feedback and make whatever adjustments are required. We have not had multiple consultations about any of these things. We have a disability employment strategy that has gone out to public consultation. There is a requirement on us to do that; if we do not, we will be judicially reviewed. That is how government does business. I am committed to delivering the strategy before I leave office, and it will be delivered before then. We have had action, not talk — we have had real action on the issue.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. Mr Diver asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the plans his Department has before 30 March 2016 to expedite the revised business case for the expansion of Magee campus of Ulster University. (AQO 9583/11-16)

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

8. Mr McCartney asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the proposed expansion of Magee campus. (AQO 9587/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to group questions 4 and 8.

My Department received the latest version of the outline business case on 22 January 2016. My officials are reviewing it and looking at the extent to which previous comments provided on 1 July 2015 regarding the version submitted in June 2015 have been addressed, as well as considering any additional information provided. A formal response will issue on the latest case as soon as possible.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, thank you for your answer. Given the previous false dawns in relation to the expansion of the Magee campus, oversight and stewardship of the business case will be critical in the uncertain context of moving from one Department to a new one. Will the Minister assure the House that the same team will work on the business case and that it will be followed up assiduously?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The same unit of officials will work on this when it transfers to the new Department. There may well be some change in personnel, as is the case in every aspect of government, but there will be no more or less continuity in this than in anything else.

I take issue with the Member's point on "false dawns". I certainly have not been involved in any false dawns in all of this. I have made it clear all along that I support the expansion of Ulster University at Magee and would like it to happen. It is clear that we need to produce more graduates, particularly those linked to the needs of our economy. However, I have also been very clear all along that we cannot expand the University of Ulster at Magee unless, collectively, the Assembly is prepared to ensure that more resource is allocated to higher education. We have to fix the current structural deficit in higher education. We have to fix the foundations before building more investment. Members should be very clear on what that involves: we have to reverse the £16 million of cuts from the 2015-16 financial year, and we have to address the £40 million structural deficit. Then we can look to the recurring cost of around £30 million to proceed with the expansion of student numbers at Magee.

I say to the Member, his party and others that it is not good enough simply to talk about this and make rhetorical commitments to the expansion. We have to show a coherent approach to public finances in Northern Ireland that will allow us to do such projects, which are very much in our interest. We have not had that collective approach across the parties for some time.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his frank answer and welcome his continuing support for the expansion of Magee. As we take the business case forward, can he indicate what the timeline will be? Can a centre of excellence, perhaps based at the Magee campus, assist in the process of ensuring its expansion?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

At this stage, I cannot give a reliable answer on the timeline. That is subject to the ongoing scrutiny of the business case by my officials. If the economists in the Department are content with it, they will pass it to DFP for its consideration. In a context where my officials are not happy with the business case, they will have to refer it to the strategy board for further comment and amendment.

You will appreciate from my original answer that we have gone down that road before. Issues were raised about what was produced in the summer of last year, and it was quite some time before the revised business case came back to the Department. Whether this is the final stage of the process or whether we will have to go through another iteration depends on the point made about scrutiny.

I reiterate to the Member that this is not about the capacity of the city council, the consultants or the university to produce a business case. Whether Magee expands depends on how it is resourced by the Executive. The resources have to be found in a sustainable way. I spelt out the costs involved in addressing our wider higher education system in Northern Ireland. You cannot expand Magee unless you fix the wider problems first, and you then have the platform on which provision can be expanded. The case for more graduates is clear, but we have to make sure that we do that in an appropriate and orderly manner. We need a commitment from all parties to resource higher education properly to the level that is required to support our economy.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the expansion at Magee, which we all support, should not come at the expense or threaten the viability of other university campuses in Northern Ireland?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Absolutely. I very much concur with the Member's comments. Indeed, when I met a delegation from Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council yesterday, it made exactly that point; I am not sure whether a woman from the delegation was in communication with anyone. Let me be very clear: we have been able to expand Magee over the past five years and have found some resource to do that. To an extent, that has been undermined by recent cuts, but, overall, the Magee campus is bigger than when I took office in 2011, notwithstanding my zero budget at that time for its expansion. It has been the policy of the university all along to consider any additional places awarded to it for allocation to the Magee campus. To be very clear: the expansion of Magee cannot come at the expense of or by undermining existing provision; it cannot come at the cost of displacing students into Derry out of existing campuses, whether Ulster University or Queen's. We need to ensure that any expansion at Magee is additional. There is a clear case for more graduates in Northern Ireland, and it is in that spirit that we should approach the expansion, subject, of course, to the Executive making money available.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

6. Mr Milne asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when he will announce the results of his consultation on the frequency of student support payments. (AQO 9585/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

At present, higher education students from Northern Ireland receive their maintenance support payments in three instalments, roughly at the beginning of each term of the academic year. This tri-annual payment system supports students with any upfront costs that they might face at the beginning of term, while also allowing them to budget ahead accordingly.

Concerns have been raised in recent times that large and infrequent payments can heighten the risk of financial mismanagement and, by extension, financial hardship amongst students. It was in response to those concerns that I launched a consultation in August last year to consider options to change the frequency of maintenance payments. The consultation closed on 27 September, and a summary of responses is available on my Department’s website.

There was no clear consensus amongst respondents about which option was preferable, and many expressed concerns over the potential cost of implementing more frequent payments, particularly if that were to detract from other areas of higher education funding. Any decision to invest in a more frequent payment system will, therefore, have to be considered within the context of the overall higher education budget and competing priorities, including, for example, our ambitions to expand student places.

As to the timing of a decision, it has emerged in recent months that the Student Loans Company has become overburdened by the demands of other Administrations — that is, England — and the earliest year in which changes could possibly be implemented will be 2017-18. In principle, I am open to change, but the timelines are such that it will fall to a future Minister to take a final decision on the matter, and he or she will have to do so within the context of the overall higher education budget.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí a thug sé go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive and detailed response. In his final deliberations, will he ensure that students' best interests will be at the heart of his decisions?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Try to be brief, Minister, please.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Very briefly. The Member needs to define what he means by students' best interests. Some will say that it is more frequent payments, and others will say that it is more places being available locally, because we are displacing too many students outside of Northern Ireland, where they pay more in fees. We have to take it in the round. Is that quick enough?

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T1. Mr McKinney asked the Minister for Employment and Learning, returning to the issue of university finance, to outline the extent to which Ulster University and Queen’s will face further cuts under the proposed Budget. (AQT 3461/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. We are still working through the figures from the Budget at this stage on exactly what is going to happen with the teaching and research grant for the universities in the forthcoming financial and academic years. At this stage, not least because we have had the additional £20 million that is due to be forthcoming and allocated officially for skills to the new Department for the Economy in the June monitoring round, we should be in the position where we can avoid any further cuts to the teaching and research grant on the road ahead. However, I caution the Assembly and, indeed, stress to the Member that the cuts from the 2015-16 financial year of £16 million to higher education are still in the system. We have seen only the first third of those implemented on September 2015 entry. As things stand, those are still in the system for September 2016 and September 2017 entry. There may be some scope to mitigate them to a small extent, but, as things stand, the vast bulk are set to go ahead. So, by no means are we out of the woods yet. Even if we were at a standstill, we would have to be investing further in our higher education because we have to ensure that we are meeting the needs of a high-skilled economy.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

While, of course, the focus is on that strategic level and the headline finance, my further focus is on the students themselves — the customers, if you like. Can the Minister give an assurance that grants, especially for those from a vulnerable and poor background, will not be cut?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Yes, I am happy to give that assurance. The House will well know that, right across the piece, we have been ensuring that the student support system has remained in place, despite all the tribulations that we have had with budgets in recent years. Some, of course, are demand-led interventions, and sometimes we may not spend our full budget allocation, but the levels of entitlement and the amount of money available as part of those entitlements have not been affected.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

T2. Mr A Maginness asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to comment on what appears to be a frenzy of planning applications for accommodation for university students in north and south Belfast and the fact that it appears that the universities are simply allowing these applications to develop in a free market without any plan or control. (AQT 3462/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First, I think it is important to acknowledge that, in one respect, the fact that we are having this interest in student accommodation is a very positive sign. It is a sign that our universities are still flourishing, despite all they have been through with cuts. They are attracting students, and international students, in particular, are very much on their agenda. That is important for openness and diversity in plugging into the rest of the world. I stress that that does not come at the expense of opportunities for local students at the same time.

In terms of accommodation, we are seeing different approaches, depending upon which of the universities we are talking about. Queen's has moved ahead with its own projects and its own managed accommodation. Ulster University is adopting an approach where the private sector is responding. I would not say it is fair to say that there is no control over that, because obviously what happens is controlled by planning for land use and the regulation of individual applications. In that respect, Belfast City Council is the lead authority with responsibility. You are seeing the council go through its own processes. In some cases, it is granting approval and, in other cases, it is not. The overall level of applications that comes forward for housing is probably going to be in excess of the need itself, but that process is working its way through the system.

Various working groups and interventions have also been organised, primarily through Belfast City Council but also under the auspices of the Department for Social Development, about how we best manage a whole host of issues on university expansion. Housing is one of those, but transport and parking are equally important.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but, in a sense, he is avoiding the real issue: in the overall structure, this is an unplanned series of developments, which could have negative impacts, as well as positive ones, on local communities. Is it not necessary for both universities to get together, along with Belfast City Council and any other planning authority, to work with your Department and satisfy the needs of students?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I assure the Member that that process is already happening and those structures exist. Indeed, they are being revamped and are giving much stronger input. We are having discussions between Departments at ministerial and permanent secretary levels. Those discussions are focused on housing, transport and parking issues. Let me be clear: I am the Minister with responsibility for universities. Universities do not exist in a bubble; they have to take account of the context in which they exist. However, other Departments also have responsibilities in relation to this piece. Obviously, the Department for Social Development has a very clear role with respect to housing and urban regeneration powers. The Department of the Environment, of which the Member's colleague is the Minister, has responsibility for some planning powers, as does the council. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for transport, including public transport. It has to be a multi-Department and multi-agency approach. The structures exist. We need to see people bringing to the table solutions to some of the problems that still have to be addressed.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for his assessment of the implications for Northern Ireland from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) higher education Green Paper. (AQT 3463/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for the question. It is another example of where policy has been set by the UK Department to meet, on the surface, the needs of England but where there are various spillover effects on what happens in the other jurisdictions. In higher education, we are seeing a major divergence of policy between England, on the one hand, and the three devolved Administrations, on the other. In England, they are going for a very much deregulated system. They have fee levels of £9,000, with the potential to go beyond that. They are opening up their market to all sorts of providers, including some very small ones. They are trying to put in place a new teaching excellence framework that will allow judgements to be made over what can be funded or not, which perhaps does not really address the needs of what happens in Northern Ireland. There is some potential threat towards the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). On the surface, that is a funding council for England, but it performs some research functions for the entire UK and its existence is under threat.

There are also some positive things happening around the widening participation agenda, where England has some very positive lessons to learn from Northern Ireland.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What action is he taking to represent the interests of Northern Ireland and the local universities in that process?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First of all, in Northern Ireland, my Department has coordinated a response from all our higher education institutions (HEIs), to which we made our views known as part of the formal consultation exercise. The three devolved Ministers have also had discussions on how we can formulate a common approach to trying to address some of the issues, particularly those with the greatest impact through spillover issues. I have spoken already to Jo Johnson, the Minister for Universities in BIS. In the very near future, I expect that the three devolved Ministers will sit down with him to have a quadrilateral discussion on those issues.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T4. Ms Hanna asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the impact that the loss of the Horizon 2020 fund would have on local universities in the event of the UK withdrawal from the EU. (AQT 3464/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

That sounds almost like a planted question. It would be quite catastrophic. As the Member will know, we are talking about a fund that amounts to close to €80 billion over the next seven years. That is a Europe-wide intervention and provides added value to what can be done through the quality-related research (QR) funding that we give domestically to our universities.

We have other pots of international funding that we can also access, but Horizon 2020 provides new openings and the opportunity for partnerships to be built across national boundaries. That is very important in the modern world of research, where things do not exist in a bubble. Particularly on some very sophisticated research projects, you need to have that scalability and be able to bring a lot of partners in from different institutions. That would not happen to the same extent if the UK was going alone. Some people may argue that additional funding would be made available to research, but you would lose the added value that comes from the potential for international collaboration between academics from different jurisdictions.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I assure Members that that was not a planted question, and neither is this one. Has the Minister's Department done a wider audit of the funding and opportunities that would be lost in the unfortunate event of a Brexit, and of how that funding shortfall or deficit would be met by departmental resources?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

There really is no plan B. If we lose the European money, we lose the European money, and we will suffer as a consequence. That will be very much to our detriment. In addition to Horizon 2020, my Department probably avails itself of more pots of European funding than any other Department. Obviously, we would lose ERASMUS+, which, again, would not just be an issue of funding; it is also about opening up opportunities for our young people to experience learning in different parts of the European Union and elsewhere, which is incredibly important. That programme has been extended to apprentices, so we can have exchanges outside the context of university students.

Obviously, we have the European social fund, which makes an enormous difference and allows us to do things that we simply could not do within our mainstream budgets. We cannot simply recoup that money, and anyone who thinks that we are going to get a big pay cheque from the UK Treasury to make up the shortfall for the European money that we would lose is in la-la land.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

T5. Mr D McIlveen asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the reskilling initiatives for people who have either lost their jobs or who will lose their jobs as a result of the closures of JTI Gallaher and Michelin in Ballymena. (AQT 3465/11-16)

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member will know that there was a meeting yesterday of the task force, which the council is coordinating with a view to addressing a range of different points on manufacturing and skills. Obviously, my Department plays a role within that, as do DETI and some other Departments.

Beyond the broader issues, there are particular points around JTI Gallaher and Michelin. Obviously, as the Member will appreciate, the two processes are at different points. The JTI Gallaher announcement is well advanced, and we have been investing, with my Department funding some very particular interventions around courses that are not otherwise available. Also, there have been some particular interventions around essential skills for some of the staff. The process is at a different stage with Michelin, because the 90-day consultation period on the collective redundancies has not formally come to an end. That will happen at the beginning of March. At that stage, the nature of the engagement will change gear quite significantly.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Before I call Mr McIlveen to ask a supplementary, I ask him and the Minister to be reasonably brief.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my very best. As we come to the dawning of the age of the Department for Employment and Learning, there is obviously an opportunity for reflection. Whilst the Minister has been very good at delivering initiatives, some may say that he has not been so successful at delivering reform. Will the Minister update the House on the reform that he is most proud of in his five years as Employment and Learning Minister?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

This is slightly separate from the original topical question but, in one word, the apprenticeship strategy.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Two words.

[Laughter.]

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order. Time is up.

Oral Answers to Questions — Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

1. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how he will ensure a stable regulatory environment for the local development of renewable energy. (AQO 9595/11-16)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

3. Mr Givan asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the renewables obligation for small-scale onshore wind. (AQO 9597/11-16)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

11. Mr Kennedy asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the closure of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation for onshore wind power. (AQO 9605/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 3 and 11 together. Our renewables record has been very successful to date. That has been due to a combination of being able to harness our natural resources whilst ensuring that the support costs are spread much more widely than our Northern Ireland consumer base. However, this means that we are also unavoidably influenced by national policy decisions, as borne out by the proposed early closure of the renewable obligations across the United Kingdom to onshore wind. I am mindful of the uncertainty that has been created around early closure to wind. My priority, at present, is to ensure that we have a timely and managed closure of the existing scheme in Northern Ireland. I want to provide the certainty that delivers the most renewable deployment for the least cost to Northern Ireland consumers.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he tell the Assembly what he plans to do during the next six months, under the moratorium on the new grid connections?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

There have been significant difficulties with the grid connections and grid connection offers. The Member is correct; NIE had to set aside its normal 90-day period for making grid connection offers due to the surge in applications that followed the regulator's determination that NIE could not require planning permission before making a grid connection. The grid simply could not accommodate the level of increase. It requires specialist analysis and, potentially, significant investment, which would have to be paid for by consumers. NIE is already committed to connecting projects which will almost double our installed renewable capacity. That is a huge challenge. I do not have powers to intervene. I cannot direct NIE or the Systems Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) to prioritise one technology over another.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In discussions with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), has it outlined what the proposed backstop power, which is now included in the Energy Bill, will mean and what the consequences of that could be for the Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificate (ROC)?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

DECC has included a backstop power in its proposed Energy Bill, as the Member said, to protect GB consumers should Northern Ireland take a different approach to the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) closure than that taken in GB. The backstop power will give DECC powers to prevent GB suppliers redeeming Northern Ireland ROCs from projects that accredit from 1 April 2016 and do not meet the closure eligibility criteria that were equivalent to those in GB. This provides little comfort for those projects and has the potential to have wider implications for the whole renewables industry here.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am interested in the ministerial responses thus far. How does the Minister intend to deal with the ongoing uncertainty created by his decision on the NIRO issue last summer? Does he accept that the delay since his closure consultation last October has created all sorts of problems for the renewables sector here? Does he have any plans to support the development of the industry after the NIRO ends? Will he bring, and how will he bring, certainty for investors, including many in my constituency?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I want to bring certainty as soon as possible. I am considering a range of options. I think that the Member will agree that DECC changed the policy. Yes, we can do what we choose to do where we have devolved powers, but DECC changed the policy, not once but a number of times. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I went to London and I said, "Look, under the coalition Government, the previous Minister agreed with you a line which was then put out to the industry. The Conservative Party then came into power as a single party and moved the goalposts for onshore wind". They moved the goalposts, not me. They then changed their position at different times.

I want to assure the House that I will always look at what delivers the best value to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I have had to deal with changing positions from DECC, and that has led to the uncertainty that we have. I will try to bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible to allow people to go forward; however, let no one misunderstand that the changing position has come from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas fosta leis an Aire as na freagraí go dtí seo. We all have some sympathy with the Minister in that these decisions have emerged from London, but I want to move on past the ROC to the renewable heat incentive (RHI). This morning, we spent two distressing hours in the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment listening to officials tell us that another bombshell has been dropped on the renewable industry sector and that the RHI is to be removed.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order. Can we have a question, please?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Can the Minister guarantee that he will give us clarity on that issue, work in collaboration with the sector, and include the Committee as he reaches a decision? Let the date not be next week, Minister.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

At the end of last year, there was an increase in demand for the renewable heat incentive scheme. My Department faces a huge budgetary pressure, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to limit the amount of money paid to Northern Ireland out of the UK pot for renewable heat. That is why, last week, I signalled my intention to ease that financial pressure, which could amount to over £27 million, by announcing the immediate closure of the scheme and bringing forward an order to suspend the scheme as soon as possible. I want everyone to know that I am listening to the industry and to individuals who are installing renewable heat boilers. I will come back to try to give that clarity at the earliest possible date.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Unlike the previous questioner, I really do not have very much sympathy with the Minister in relation to his summary decision on the renewable heat initiative. It is not acceptable. It will impact adversely on many small installers. Will he review his decision or take remedial action to strengthen those small tradesmen?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member has misunderstood what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done with regard to renewable heat and the fact that the goalposts have been moved and that a limit has been put on Northern Ireland. If we go beyond that limit, we have to bear the costs ourselves. It was introduced in November 2012 to the non-domestic sector and in 2014 to the domestic sector, and it has been taken up very successfully. To date, over 3,500 renewable heating installations have been incentivised. Uptake has been higher than in GB. We have exceeded the Northern Ireland Executive's 2015 target, which was 4%. About 6% of Northern Ireland's heating needs is now provided through renewable heating technologies. The Member would do well to look at the Chancellor's autumn statement and what follows it and also consider the costs to Northern Ireland.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

2. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the delivery of superfast broadband in North Antrim. (AQO 9596/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In February 2014, my Department contracted BT to deliver the Northern Ireland broadband improvement project. That is primarily aimed at rural areas and seeks to extend the availability of, primarily, basic and, where possible, superfast broadband to those who have limited choice across Northern Ireland with a target of 45,000 premises. The project was scheduled to be completed by 31 December 2015. However, there was engineering complexity, and that date has been extended by three months to 31 March 2016.

Improvements have already been carried out to over 40,000 premises across Northern Ireland, including almost 5,000 in postcode areas in the North Antrim constituency.

On 22 January 2016, I announced the introduction of a satellite broadband support scheme, which falls under the auspices of the Northern Ireland broadband improvement project. It seeks to provide residents and businesses that are still experiencing speeds below two megabits per second with the option of applying for a subsidy of up to £350 towards the cost of installing a satellite broadband connection.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware of my constituents' concerns? It seems to be the case that BT is degrading its copper system and its other old systems. What can he do to make sure that BT meets all its obligations and does not let people wither on the vine with a copper system? People are experiencing even lower speeds than they were at Christmas.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware of a lot of problems, particularly in rural areas. A number of months ago, people from west Tyrone spoke to me. A number of people raised complaints with me that, if there is congestion on the system — the beam and different things — that effectively causes them not to have a service.

Not all areas will be able to access superfast broadband once the Northern Ireland broadband improvement project is completed. We awarded the contract for the second project to BT. That was the superfast broadband roll-out programme.

I will take up those specific issues with BT on behalf of the Member. I had a very detailed meeting with its senior officials last week at which I raised a number of concerns. It is unacceptable, particularly when, first, I have people coming to me whose children have either to be taken back to school or driven to the library just to get their homework done. Secondly, other children are experiencing extreme difficulties just managing against the curriculum, and we are raising that issue with BT. Thirdly, we have some hugely successful businesses in the area of computer-aided design (CAD). They must submit their programmes to tender, so people are literally leaving their machines on at night in the hope that, when they get up the next morning, their CAD or specific design, which they must use to tender for business, has come through. I will emphasise to BT that we cannot condone that set of circumstances into the future.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's answer, but I put this to him: why, after spending millions of pounds on assisting BT to provide broadband, do we still have major gaps right across the North, particularly in Newry and Armagh?

I ask that question on behalf of Matthew Nugent of 58 Tievenamara Road, Carnagh, BT60 3JA, who lives 90 metres from a box that was upgraded last year and is one of a number of people in rural Armagh and south Armagh who has no broadband provision, after we have spent millions of pounds of public money on it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Those are important points. If the Member wants to send me details of that specific case, I will certainly look at it.

We continue to make broadband services widely available via a mix of technologies. Almost £64 million, as the Member says, has been invested since 2008 to encourage private sector upgrade to networks, particularly in rural areas. Seventy-nine per cent of households are currently accessing the Internet. I find that a very difficult figure when I compare it with the UK figure of 85%, and 72% of those who are accessing the Internet are doing so through a broadband connection. The number of premises that are connected to a broadband service offering speeds of 2 megabits per second or higher is continuing to increase, and now stands at 94%. Owing to the extensive next-generation access network put in place by my Department's investments, there have been over 239,000 fibre-based, high-speed broadband connections to date. Although we acknowledge that download speeds in Northern Ireland are continuing to increase, the average download speed stands at 28·3 megabits per second, and that is below the UK average of 29 megabits per second. We will continue to pursue how we can get that to a more level playing field.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far with regard to BT. I declare a personal interest in that BT totally and utterly failed me in my service for nearly two months. As a result of that, I discovered that BT has set aside only 60% of the capacity of the green cabinets that it has installed to deliver its so-called super-fast broadband. So, in any one area, not everyone, even if they wished to purchase super-fast broadband, can have it. Is the Minister satisfied that 60% capacity per cabinet is a reasonable commercial decision by BT?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will raise that particular case with BT. I am not satisfied with broadband provision across Northern Ireland. I do not think that anybody who has a genuine interest in seeing all of Northern Ireland develop could be satisfied, knowing how much depends upon a broadband connection, particularly for business. The rules are changing. Businesses in rural areas are saying to me, "We have to present it in this way. We need the connection to actually do this." So, we will have to continue to work to what is a difficult system, but, as Minister, I accept that nobody in the House could be satisfied with the level of complaints and dissatisfaction that we have, particularly in the rural community.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Paul Givan for a question.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mine was joined to the first question, Deputy Speaker.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Ross Hussey.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

4. Mr Hussey asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for his assessment of gross value added growth in the economy as set out in the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency composite economic index to quarter 3, 2015. (AQO 9598/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank Mr Hussey. The latest results from the Northern Ireland composite economic index, which measures economic activity, show that we experienced growth in three of the last four quarters, with an annual increase of 1·6%. Despite those positives, the figures for the latest quarter were negative. Those findings are disappointing. Most economists who are advising me are saying, "Don't get too fixated on just one single quarter's data." Northern Ireland is relatively small and quarterly statistics, as the evidence shows, can be inherently volatile. There have also been substantial improvements in the local labour market during this time, with unemployment continuing to fall and private sector jobs at their highest level ever. We cannot be complacent about that, but I think that everybody in the House would like to celebrate the fact that unemployment is falling and the private sector is growing and at its highest number ever.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Is the Minister not concerned about output? For example, Ulster Bank says that we grew in economic terms by between 1·5% and 2% in 2015, whilst the rest of the UK grew by 2·3%, and the Republic grew by over 5% for the second successive year. Is he not concerned that we may be stagnating?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am always concerned when it appears that other parts are performing better. We can look at statistics in a range of ways. We have massive challenges in our manufacturing sector but it is posting 3% annual growth and added 4,000 jobs over the past year. While we look at experiencing a relatively modest recovery since the local downturn, our biggest sector, the services sector, has posted 1% annual growth, with jobs at an all-time high.

There is a big issue for me and many in the House from constituencies that depend on construction. Our construction sector was the most impacted during the downturn but, even there, we are seeing what appears to be very real signs of recovery. Output is up 14% on an annual basis and the sector added 870 jobs over the latest year of data.

If you look at the quarterly figures, I do see concerns. I take the advice to look not only at those but to note the volatility. Looking at the annual change, in services we are 1% up, in manufacturing output we are 2·9% up, and in construction output we are 13·7% up.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answers. As Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, your job entails marketing Northern Ireland throughout the world, and I think that we all admit that you do that enthusiastically. What economic levers can you use as you travel to attract new business into Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The big one that we have been taking forward in this last particular period is the game changer of corporation tax. That is when we asked the independent research to come to us on the rate of 12·5% that we will have from 1 April. The independent advice was that we should be looking at creating 30,000 additional jobs and that we should be growing our economy by almost 10% over 15 years. In the last short period, I have taken, I think, 13 companies across three cities in China. Two weeks ago, I was with 15 of our companies that have a particular focus on technology, and we went from San Francisco right through to New York.

I can tell you that there is major interest in Northern Ireland. I estimate that a huge percentage of what I do I cannot tell you until the ink is dry on the contracts because they are commercially sensitive. There is huge interest in Northern Ireland because we have three unique things. We have business costs that are about 84% or 85% of the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a talent pool and a very low attrition rate. In fact, 80% of all the businesses that have invested in Northern Ireland have subsequently reinvested, and, when I bring in new investors, I am grateful to those businesses for telling a success story. And then we have the attraction of corporation tax, giving us the most competitive corporation tax rate in western Europe.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given the key role played by our manufacturing sector in economic growth in Northern Ireland, why is there no manufacturing strategy currently in place with long-term commitments and targets on key issues like rates, energy and infrastructure?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member knows the answer to that question because his party was party to the economic strategy. His party agreed that we would put all of our strategy into one specific strategy, which was the economic strategy, which his party at Executive level agreed to. Manufacturing is a very important sector for Northern Ireland. I do not take away from anybody who has lost their job. Anybody who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s in Belfast, as I did, and who watched their family and other people lose their jobs knows how devastating that is. Equally, the manufacturing sector is telling me of the successes that it is having, and it has been performing well. Over the past year, it has added 4,000 additional jobs. The manufacturing output is up by nearly 3%, and that is more than the UK average.

We want to ensure that we continue with a strong recovery. That is why I have done specific things for manufacturing. Look at what I did to try to help Bombardier address its energy costs. We also had a proposal on the table with Michelin. We will never know what would have happened if it had taken that up. Last week, I spent time at Montupet with about 15 companies from the manufacturing sector that are all high energy users. We spent quite a bit of time looking at where the strengths, the weaknesses and the opportunities were coming from. Also, as the House knows, I have established the manufacturing energy task force. It is being chaired by a person who, as I understand it, is the fifth-largest energy user in Northern Ireland. I await the outcome of that, and I intend to give very due diligence to that to see how we can further support the sector.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister describes the reduction that is pending in corporation tax as a game changer. Can he explain why it did not change the game in my constituency for either JTI or Michelin, which are leaving our shores, sadly, approximately at the time when the reduction in corporation tax will come? Clearly, it did not impress them as something causing them to make it worthwhile to stay, so is it really the game changer that the Minister proclaims it to be? Experience to date in my constituency does not suggest so.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that the Member raises some very important points about Michelin specifically. Not only have I spent several hours trying to ensure that we get that workforce all the qualifications so that the employees are in the best place to get new jobs, but I have spent quite a bit of time with the Michelin management. I asked them whether there was anything more that the Government could have done, and they said no. When I asked them to list the reasons why Michelin left north Antrim, they explained that there was a glut of thousands in the truck tyre market — it made a very specific product there. They talked about fluctuations in the euro and Asian imports costing £130 against the vastly superior Michelin product that cost over £500.

I can tell the Member that there is huge interest in Northern Ireland. Companies like Allstate say to me, "Jonathan, we came for the costs; we stayed for your people". Other companies like Citi come to provide hundreds of jobs and now provide in the region of 2,000. The likes of Randox and Wrightbus, which is in your constituency, are tripling their profits and talking about what they can do into the future. If we present a collective message of low cost, low tax and an excellent workforce, we have a winning message for the economy in Northern Ireland.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

5. Mr Milne asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the action he has taken regarding a targeted job investment programme west of the Bann. (AQO 9599/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Invest Northern Ireland's role is to support companies that bring forward investment projects on the basis of merit, irrespective of where they are based. Through local government reform and the process of community planning, councils can shape job investment in their region by tailoring a subregional proposition to drive investment into, and set relevant targets for, their respective areas. Invest Northern Ireland will assist in the development of those council-led subregional strategies to help to drive economic development on an equitable basis throughout Northern Ireland.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí a thug sé go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he detail his Department's success or otherwise in securing investment in Mid Ulster, which I represent, and, in particular, the south Derry end?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

From 2011-15, Invest Northern Ireland support totalled £118 million. That contributed to planned investment of £673 million in areas west of the River Bann and helped businesses to promote 9,679 jobs. During the same period, businesses in that area created some 7,416 jobs. Those figures include assistance and investment totalling £15 million and £20 million that was offered to external delivery organisations and universities, which promoted six jobs. The number of jobs promoted and created is directly proportional to the adult population of each area. Twenty-seven per cent of the adult population resides in the west, and that is directly comparable to the 26% of jobs promoted and 27% of jobs created by businesses with Invest Northern Ireland support.

Gerard Diver (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, your description today of prosperity and jobs coming forward is, I think, as someone from the constituency of Foyle, almost like Harold Macmillan saying that we have "never had it so good." The Executive's north-west ministerial group met only twice in the last year. Is that appropriate action given the level of disadvantage that we face? Should we be looking at a bespoke measure like a city deal for Derry?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I can understand the Member needing a sound bite, but he should not talk down the area that he represents. He will know, if he has been following this for the last 12 months, what I have done publicly in that area specifically. I have also been in the area privately on a number of occasions, and I want to see fruit grow from that. He will know from the announcements about OneSource Virtual, ModSquad and Nu Print Technologies that we have created, with Invest support, hundreds of new jobs in his area.

If he does not know that, he should.

When I addressed the Chamber of Commerce and spoke to the skills sector and people involved with the universities, I sensed that there is an upbeat, can-do nature. I want to facilitate that, from small businesses such as Oakgrove, which is creating a quality, premium product for export, right through to those big job announcements such as that from ModSquad, which has created hundreds of jobs in the area. We will build on that. Come with me and I will support you 100% in trying to bring business into the area and telling people that they have 84% of the business costs of the rest of the UK, they have very well educated people, and, on 1 April 2018, they will have the most competitive rate of corporation tax. That should be a winning message.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

That ends the period for listed questions.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

T1. Mrs Cochrane asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment whether he acknowledges that the levels of economic inactivity represent a structural problem within our economy that must be tackled. (AQT 3471/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, I do. I have had tremendous support in the one year that I have been in office, and I have seen what Mr Farry did as Minister in trying to ensure that we address long-term economic inactivity. It is reducing but only by percentage points, and we want it to reduce further.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the fact that he acknowledges that there is an issue. What steps can be taken in the coming months to identify the financial resources to begin to implement the Executive's economic inactivity strategy that his Department co-produced with DEL?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have been trying to ensure that that budget delivers against the strategy that we set out. The Minister for Employment and Learning had discussions with the First Minister when she was the Finance Minister, as most of us did in our Departments, and extra money was allocated directly to skills. None of us got everything that we wanted, but it was recognised that we have a wonderful opportunity in front of us.

Minister Farry was with me in the States when we went to a number of specific companies to look at what we can do together to address economic inactivity. He is doing excellent work in bespoke training for companies. The training is taken through, and the person has only to be interviewed by the client at the end, and they are delivering real success. That is the right model: go with the business model and then back it up with training. In a new Department for the Economy, we will try to align the skills to factor in the jobs that we can and will have.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

T2. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline the representations he has received from business and industry about the concerns around the negative impact of the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. (AQT 3472/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I should correct the record, as I made a mistake last week when I talked about not knowing the nature of the "question". I should have said the nature of the "terms", so I will correct the record.

Businesses have spoken to me but have not done so exclusively with one voice. Different approaches are being made. We have commissioned Oxford Economics to provide the best information so that people can examine what may or may not come next week.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. With the First Minister leaning towards out of the EU, is it likely that you will be the only Enterprise Minister in the United Kingdom who is anti-EU and will lead the charge against industry and business in Northern Ireland?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I support 100% the position adopted by Mrs Foster as First Minister, by our MEP and by our parliamentary leader. What I have asked people to do is look seriously at the information that we are commissioning from Oxford Economics on the range of options and examine it against the terms that come through.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

T3. Mr Lyons asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for his assessment of Northern Ireland’s tourism potential and to state the actions his Department has taken to promote tourism here. (AQT 3473/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Tourism in Northern Ireland is going from strength to strength. I think that the last set of figures that I looked at showed that it is worth £751 million, and we intend to grow it to a £1 billion industry by 2020. I get very encouraged when I hear about 81 cruise ships coming into Northern Ireland and when I see statistics saying that 2·53 million people are visiting Titanic Belfast. I am also very encouraged to hear that, as I announced on Friday, 100 major Chinese tour operators are coming to visit Northern Ireland in the next number of weeks. The potential of that is absolutely huge. I had them down at Mount Stewart, and they were, quite frankly, blown away with what they could offer. They were telling me that they could surely attract significant numbers of Asian tourists, who are in one of the biggest markets in the world, to Northern Ireland.

Of course, I know that the Gobbins cliff path is in the Member's constituency. That is a feature. When you put it alongside Titanic Belfast, the Geopark in the west and Mount Stewart and combine them, you see why we have a unique tourism offering in Northern Ireland and why I am confident that we should achieve our target of a £1 billion industry by 2020.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am very pleased that the Minister highlighted the Gobbins cliff path as one of the attractions in our constituency. It is great to hear that so many good things are happening within tourism at the minute, but we do have a slight problem. An awful lot of people go to Titanic Belfast and then perhaps up to the north coast. Would it not be a good idea for more tourists to go via the east Antrim coast to visit Carrickfergus, the Antrim coast road and the Gobbins cliff path? Will the Minister agree to work with and meet Mid and East Antrim Borough Council so that we can work out how we can maximise the tourist potential of that area?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will, of course, meet the council. The Member was with me the previous occasion we met the council specifically on the tourism initiative. I will continue to work with the council because I want all of Northern Ireland to benefit from the tourism that comes in.

We have found that, when people come and visit us, they like it. They come back and want to bring their family and friends. Part of our challenge is to make sure that they come and visit us specifically. The whole Causeway coastal route is worthy of international appeal, and it has been identified as an area for growth for visitor numbers and for spend.

When you add the other things that are going on on the periphery, you can see things like the huge success of 'Game of Thrones' tourism. The Irish Open in 2015 had 107,000 paying spectators, and we will get the Irish Open back in 2017. We will also have one of the biggest tournaments in the world, The Open, in 2019. You can compare those with things like the Women's Rugby World Cup. My Department is putting a lot of strength into trying to attract the Rugby World Cup to Ireland, which has the potential to bring some 350,000 rugby supporters here, and into working on how we can maximise that benefit for Northern Ireland. When you look at that, you will see that we can all be encouraged by the tourism offering.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T4. Mr Patterson asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment when the closure of the renewable heat incentive scheme will take effect, considering that legislation passed on 18 November 2015 clearly stated to the sector a closure on 31 March 2016. (AQT 3474/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Member to the House. I said that there was a huge increase in the demand for the renewable heat incentive scheme at the end of last year. That has given not just my Department but Northern Ireland a huge budgetary pressure. As the Member should know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to limit the amount of money that was paid to Northern Ireland out of the UK pot for renewable heat. That is why I signalled my intention last week to ease that financial pressure, which could amount to over £27 million.

Alastair Patterson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the comments of the Minister, and his welcome to the House.

The Minister announced the sudden closure of the renewable heat initiative last Friday, after 6.00 pm, in a press release. In his press release, he mentioned that around 6% of Northern Ireland's heating needs are now provided through renewable technologies. The Executive's Programme for Government renewable heat target is 10% by 2020. Has the Minister abandoned that target? Does he still have an incentive policy for renewables? A lot of firms have invested money into this and need answers from the Minister.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The reality is that we have exceeded the current target. I now want to listen specifically to the industry. I have been listening to individuals who are currently installing the renewable heat boilers. I think it is important that we, as politicians and everyone in this House, listen and do all that we can to help as many people as possible. I will reflect on what is being said to me, and I will examine ways in which I can help those who have been affected by my decision from last week. I also want to say that, inevitably, there will be an investigation into why we have found ourselves in this position. I have, as a matter of urgency, asked my own officials to ensure that the scheme is running to the letter and spirit of the law. I will be keeping a very close eye on that.

I think the Member also needs to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has limited the amount of money being paid to Northern Ireland out of the UK pot as regards renewable heat, and that puts challenges on every Member of this House.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

T5. Mr Ross asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who will be aware that the Employment Bill is working its way through the House today in order to reform employment law in Northern Ireland, and in light of his previous answer in which he listed business costs, the talent pool and corporation tax as three of the main drivers to get investors to come to Northern Ireland, to state how important the employment law environment is when he is talking to investors who are thinking about coming here. (AQT 3475/11-16)

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Any investor will want to consider the employment legislation against the backdrop of putting a significant amount of investment into Northern Ireland. I have to say that in all my discussions, from Asia through to America and Europe, I have learned that when they look at Northern Ireland they are looking specifically to a talent pool with a very low rate of attrition; I think that, in some cases, it is less than 7%. Investors are looking to save business costs and are attracted by us having, in the future, the lowest rate of corporation tax in Western Europe. I think all of that has helped us to reduce our unemployment figures to approximately 6%. This stands against a European average of above 9%, and, the last time I looked, the Irish figure was 8.9%. So we are in a very competitive position. We cannot rest on our laurels. We have the unique opportunity of there being 30,000 jobs in front of us. The challenge is for us to ensure that we have young people with the skills to rise to that challenge and also to ensure that, as people progress, we see a decrease in economic inactivity.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has talked about the competitive nature of attracting investors to Northern Ireland. One of the elements of the Employment Bill going through today is an amendment that will allow Northern Ireland's qualifying period for unfair dismissal to be the same as that in GB. Would he share my concern that, if Northern Ireland has a different employment law environment than, perhaps, Glasgow or Liverpool, we would be at a disadvantage, in terms of investment, if we did not keep in step with change in the GB employment law?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. Let me answer the question in the following way: one of the groups that I was with came here to create hundreds of jobs and is now in a position where they have created thousands of jobs. Their chief executive told me that one of the things specific to Northern Ireland is that, on an international market basis, people love the fact that, in terms of compliance, law and regulation, we are on the same page as the rest of the United Kingdom.

You could have all the advantages of United Kingdom business, with lower costs and, I would say, a very attractive employment pool to work from — one of the best educated — and, into the future, the lowest rate of corporation tax in western Europe. However, it has been mentioned to me that that compliance across the United Kingdom, and particularly the regulation across the United Kingdom, has led to further investment in Northern Ireland.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Mr Gregory Campbell is not in his place. I invite Mr Paul Girvan to ask a very short supplementary question.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

T7. Mr Girvan asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in light of Belfast International Airport’s recent job announcements, what measures he has taken to ensure that this region gets some help with air passenger duty (APD), given that we are competing with Dublin — 100 miles down the road — which offers 0% APD, and the Scottish islands, which have had some flexibility, albeit that we are tied to the UK system, has he lobbied for the abolition of APD. (AQT 3477/11-16)

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Minister, can you answer that in a few seconds?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. First, I congratulate Graham Keddie and his marvellous team for the success that they have had, not just in job creation but in increased passenger numbers. I believe that the UK as a whole should address air passenger duty, and we lobbied very strongly for that to happen. That does not take away from the fact that it should happen on a UK-wide basis to drive tourism in Northern Ireland. I will continue to work with all our airports; I have been to City of Derry Airport and I have seen the success of Belfast City Airport in increased passenger numbers and the boost to the economy. There is a really good news story in the Member's constituency, and I will look at every avenue that I have, not just in lobbying the UK on air passenger duty but seeing what we can do around air route development funds and marketing strategies that could lead to continued further success.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Time is up.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, despite our many differences, to commend the Minister on the Alert Logic job investment in Belfast yesterday, which, incredibly, he did not mention? I think that the House should congratulate him on that.