Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): From the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL), I welcome Dr Alan Scott, the head of the employment relations policy and legislation branch; Mr John McKeown, the acting assistant director of strategy in the European employment relations division; and Ms Deirdre Walsh from the employment relations policy and legislation branch.

You heard our timeline, Alan. The Committee will try to facilitate as much as possible to make sure that we get the Bill through before the end of the session. We are prepared to put the work in if you are prepared to support us and come back with the right answers.

Dr Alan Scott (Department for Employment and Learning): We are grateful to the Committee for that and will certainly provide whatever support we can.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I appreciate that. Over to you.

Mr John McKeown (Department for Employment and Learning): I will kick off, Chair. I will start by thanking you and the Committee for the opportunity to provide this briefing on the Department's refreshed Employment Bill, which is to be introduced in the Assembly on 7 December — next Monday. When we last briefed you on the Employment Bill in May, the expectation was, as you know, to introduce the Bill around the end of June. I am aware that the Minister then provided you with a brief update on the Bill in his presentation to the Committee in September and outlined the developments and the reasons for delay.

Now that the way is clear for the Bill to be introduced, we thought that it would be a timely opportunity to remind you of what is included in the Bill and what has been removed since we last met in May and to advise you of some additional provisions that have been inserted, given the opportunity that was presented by the time lapse over the summer. I will briefly cover the main provisions, and then Deirdre, Alan and I will be happy to discuss any detail and answer any questions from members.

The Bill, in its original form, included the establishment of a new process of Labour Relations Agency (LRA) early conciliation, requiring parties to be offered but not obliging them to undertake conciliation in most cases before proceeding to an employment tribunal. Stakeholders welcomed that proposed new system, and it is consistent with the Department's long-term goal of promoting the earlier resolution of disputes as far as possible without the need to go to tribunal in recognition of how costly, stressful and time-consuming tribunals can be for all parties.

The Bill also extends confidentiality provisions to ensure that the full range of LRA dispute resolution services is appropriately protected and establishes a legislative basis for the LRA to establish a neutral assessment service, which, by agreement, could give disputing parties an idea of how their case might be decided if it is not resolved between them. You will recall that the Department's consultation process did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate an increase in the unfair dismissal qualifying period to two years, in line with GB, and the qualifying period will, therefore, remain the same at one year. However, we have included provision in the Bill to convert the power to amend the qualifying period for the right to claim unfair dismissal from confirmatory to draft affirmative procedure, which allows us to ensure that any future change to the qualifying period will be subject to debate in the Assembly before it can proceed.

The Bill provides for more accurate rounding when annual changes in line with inflation are applied to certain employment rights-related payments, and that includes things like the maximum amount for unfair dismissal, which currently sits at £78,400.

The Bill also introduces a public interest test to close the loophole in public interest disclosure legislation whereby private or contractual disclosures could be protected under public interest disclosure law. There is also a power to amend the definition of worker for the purposes of whistle-blowing and to alter the effect of the good faith requirement for whistle-blowing and provision for employers to be vicariously liable if an employee who makes a protected disclosure subsequently experiences detriment from colleagues.

In addition, the Bill includes enabling powers that relate to tribunal rules. First, they are to bring tribunal regulations and rules into line with current practice, permitting 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 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.

The Bill also provides for the continued delivery of high-quality, impartial careers guidance by suitably qualified individuals. That element was developed in discussions with this Committee in particular, and it also allows regulations to define what constitutes an apprenticeship.

In all those matters, the Employment Bill remains as it was drafted in May. However, as the Chair said, some key provisions have been removed from the May draft. In its original form, the Bill included provision adjusting from 90 days to 45 days the period for consultation in collective redundancy situations involving 100 or more employees. It also included provision to remove fixed-term employees from the count to determine the length of consultation in collective redundancy situations and provided for any future subordinate legislation altering the consultation periods for collective redundancies to again be subject to the draft affirmative rather than the confirmatory procedure. That was to give the Assembly the power to agree or decline measures in advance rather than retrospectively.

As the Minister informed members when he appeared before the Committee in September, provisions concerning collective redundancies have been removed from the initial draft of the Bill in an effort to facilitate political agreement to allow the Bill to proceed. The Bill, therefore, no longer includes a change to the consultation periods for collective redundancies, which will now remain at 90 days for redundancy situations involving over 100 employees.

The revision of the Bill during the summer to exclude collective redundancy provisions also afforded us the opportunity to include provisions that had earlier been earmarked as potential amendments for a later Assembly stage. As targeted consultation and policy consideration on these issues had been completed by that stage, and the proposals had received support, the Bill was redrafted, first, to include, in the scope of public interest disclosure, whistle-blowing protections for some health sector workers who were inadvertently excluded previously; and, secondly, to place a duty on regulators to report annually on whistle-blowing issues. Following discussions with the Department of Education, the draft careers clause now includes reference to careers education. A number of minor drafting changes have also been applied more generally to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the policy intentions.

As members will be aware from previous briefings, it had been the intention to introduce provisions relating to zero-hours contracts in the Employment Bill, probably, at that stage, by amendment. The Minister has not yet been able to secure agreement on his proposals as set out when we briefed you in February. As such, and given the short timescales that remain for the Bill to go through the Assembly during this mandate — we mentioned that — the Minister has limited options to continue pursuing the inclusion of some form of zero-hours provision.

I move now to measures not being progressed at this time. The Bill does not contain technical changes concerning the assessment of costs for tribunal proceedings, which had previously been flagged as potential amendments. Policy is simply not yet settled.

Finally, we are no longer contemplating the replication of provision in Great Britain in section 149 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which prohibits health workers from discriminating against job applicants who have previously made a public interest disclosure. That is simply because, at this time, there is insufficient evidence to provide a basis for legislation. However, we remain committed to keeping that matter under consideration.

That is a very quick run-through of the Bill's provisions and a reflection of the changes that have been made since we last spoke on the issue. Thank you again, Chair, for the opportunity to do so. I offer you the opportunity to ask questions or raise issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Thanks, John. Alan and Deirdre, are you here to answer questions rather than to make a presentation?

Dr Scott: Yes.

Ms Deirdre Walsh (Department for Employment and Learning): Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): John, does the change in definition to include student nurses and student midwives mean that whistle-blowing protection will be extended to them?

Mr McKeown: Yes. That includes them in the protections offered by the legislation. My understanding is that they were excluded by an oversight. That brings them in, protects them and offers them the full range of public interest protections.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): You mentioned something that has divided the Committee and vexed many others: zero-hours contracts. I note that it has been removed from the Bill, but you said that the Minister or somebody else may bring it in under amendments at a later stage of the passage of the Bill. You said that the Minister had "limited options" for bringing in zero-hours contracts. What are his options?

Ms Walsh: Whatever happens now will depend on the time constraints, because the time in which to consider amendments is very, very short. The options would be the least complex proposals in the original proposals.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I am asking the Department this: do you feel that amendments may come forward from a source outside the Department?

Mr McKeown: We do not have a strong sense of that at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Clause 14 will insert new article 67FA into the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. In layman's terms, will you explain the following:

Ms Walsh: That places a duty on listed, prescribed organisations to report annually on any disclosures.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): In layman's terms. [Laughter.]

Mr McKeown: The idea is to bring about greater transparency. If someone blows the whistle or makes a public interest disclosure to a regulatory body such as the Royal College of Midwives — I use that example just to keep the theme going and not because I am married to a midwife — the body would have to report annually, not on the detail of any disclosure but on the number and the actions that were taken to follow up. It is so that disclosures do not disappear into a void.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Would a list of organisations be brought in under that provision?

Ms Walsh: A list will be prescribed in regulations. There is a list already, but organisations may be added or, indeed, taken off.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): By whom? When?

Ms Walsh: After consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): You touched on careers guidance, John. That came out of the Committee's inquiry, and I am glad that it is in the Bill. However, the language provides that the Department "may" rather than "shall" make the arrangements. Why is that?

Dr Scott: That is to enable the Department to have the discretion to do that rather than its being a requirement. The way in which it is done needs to be carefully considered. I think that it is the intention to do so; there is no decision not to do it. It is phrased in such a way in order to provide the discretion.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): It is not just there for window dressing.

Dr Scott: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): The use of "may", however, leaves it to the discretion of the Department to bring the matter forward if it thinks it can or should.

Dr Scott: It would be in the context of proper engagement with stakeholders. As far as I am aware, the intention is to act on the provision. It is not there just for the sake of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I would like something stronger. Following on from our inquiry, the Minister set up a careers advisory forum, which is chaired by Judith Gillespie. We talked about it on Monday at Question Time. There should be an intention to act. As Chair, I would like the language to be a bit stronger.

Mr McKeown: We can certainly bring that back to our Careers Service colleagues on the policy side.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): That is what we have found.

Clause 21 makes a provision to change from confirmatory to draft affirmative procedure. As a Committee, we welcome that reinforcement to ensure that changes are not brought in by regulations at a later date.

I have one very minor point. Clause 11 refers to "employment judges": is that just a change of name?

Dr Scott: It is purely a change of name. It follows the practice that has already been introduced into tribunals by the president. The current legislation refers to these individuals as chairmen, and the thinking behind the change is that it provides a clear indication of their role. They are legally qualified, and the cases are often very complex. The new title gives an indication of the types of decisions that are made in tribunals and also brings what is in the legislation in line with practice in tribunals.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): There are no further implications for an individual down the line with payment or —

Dr Scott: No. There is no intention to alter the role of the chairmen/employment judges. It is just a change in terminology.

Mr Hilditch: Thanks for your presentation. In layman's terms, what is the difference between fixed-term workers and agency workers?

Ms Walsh: Fixed-term workers are employed for a fixed term of, say, six months. Agency workers are contracted in an open-ended arrangement, whereby they may be required for two weeks, four weeks and so on. Agency workers tend to work under contracts for services, whereas a fixed-term contract tends to be a contract of employment.

Mr Hilditch: Agency workers can basically be told the night before, "Do not come in in the morning". Is it right that employers can get away with that sort of thing?

Ms Walsh: Generally, the conduct regulations governing the recruitment sector provide for some notice to be given to agency workers as to when they are to appear for work, what type of work they will be doing, the location and so on. It would not be without that kind of notice.

Mr Hilditch: In layman's terms again, will you give us a wee bit more detail on the clause on apprenticeships?

Dr Scott: The purpose of that clause is to allow the regulations to specify the target groups for apprenticeships and the types of activity that will be carried out. Nowhere is that defined in legislation at the moment. It is to establish something that is statutory and that the Department will be required to do.

Mr Hilditch: I recently had to deal with two or three whistle-blowing cases. To be honest, the treatment of whistle-blowers in this country is appalling — absolutely shocking. Will you elaborate on how this would be more beneficial moving forward?

Ms Walsh: These powers will legislate for employers to be vicariously liable if an employee who makes a disclosure suffers any detriment or is victimised.

Mr Hilditch: That includes the organisation as well as colleagues in the workforce. Basically, it covers everything.

Ms Walsh: That is the intention.

Mr McKeown: That is quite a significant development. Imagine a scenario in which Deirdre blows the whistle, and I as the employer do nothing, but Alan as a colleague puts her under significant pressure or exposes her to some of the behaviours that you talked about. Not only is Alan responsible but I as the employer am responsible, and we have to face the consequences. That is quite a significant development.

Mr Hilditch: It is. It is very welcome because, as we approach 2016, the way in which whistle-blowers are treated in this country is absolutely shocking.

Ms McGahan: I want to go back to the Chairman's point about judges and changing the terminology. Tribunals are seen primarily as a people's court. There are concerns out there that we are moving away from this multidisciplinary perspective to a more legalistic perspective. Does that move fit in with the aims and objectives of a tribunal? I am conscious that people who are deemed to be vulnerable or have mental health difficulties go in front of a tribunal. I sat on disability living allowance (DLA) tribunals and dealt with a range of people: doctors, solicitors and people from the Department. Will you address those concerns? You are painting it as only a change in terminology. Does that still fit in with the aims and objectives of tribunals, which are seen as a people's court?

Dr Scott: It is an important issue. We recently completed a consultation on changes to tribunal rules and procedures. The consultation was very wide-ranging, and it looked at, among other issues, the position of vulnerable people in accessing the system.

We are conscious that those issues exist. We are also not proposing to change the operation of the tribunal.

I take your point about the term "employment judge" being more legalistic. Some responses to the consultation certainly state that. Others make the alternative point that people are often looking for a legal judgement on the issues that they face, and they want the comfort and knowledge that that is what they are getting. Some people find the idea of chairmen and their role confusing. There are different arguments around that. However, in recognition of the practice that already exists in tribunals, the president has directed that that should be the terminology used, and it is the terminology used. We want to make sure that the legislation reflects and is in line with that.

At the same time, it is important that we develop guidance and support that clearly explains for people the process of accessing the tribunal and the role of the employment judge, the trade union and employer panel members that sit with that person. At this stage, we are looking through responses to the consultation. In developing the new tribunal rules and procedures that the Bill will feed into, we will have a response to that over the coming months.

Ms McGahan: You said that there were a number of views on this, expressing pros and cons. You clearly feel that the pros outweigh the cons and that people want a legal decision to be made. If you go to a DLA tribunal, it is the same thing. You have to work within the legal framework, but you get those broad views.

How you have outlined it has left me a wee bit uncertain. I am still concerned about people who are vulnerable. If guidelines are being produced, they need to very strong and definitive.

Dr Scott: That issue will certainly be taken into account. Any feedback that we get from the Committee and other stakeholders will be considered, and we will want to explain to people very clearly the process that they are entering into, how the tribunal will operate and what they will be expected to do when they go there. The good offices of the Labour Relations Agency are always on hand to offer advice, and possibly conciliation, should people wish to sign up to that. Therefore, there are different ways and means of supporting people as they go through the process, and we want to make sure that those are available.

Ms McGahan: It is also about dealing with the perception that we are moving away from a people's court.

Dr Scott: Yes.

Ms McGahan: That is also a very important area that I am already picking up on.

Dr Scott: Yes. Unfortunately, it has become the reality that there is a much more legalistic system now than there used to be. The law is a lot more complex, with various European decisions coming down. It is important that there be legal expertise within the tribunal system but, at the same time, that it is informed by the workplace knowledge and expertise of the panel members who sit with the employment judge or the chair. That is the direction in which we are hoping to head, with, as I say, the appropriate support.

Mr McKeown: I have taken a degree of comfort from the approach. Alan has been managing the consultation on effective and efficient tribunals, and there is quite a good focus on helping people access the tribunals and understand the processes in a clear and easy way. That is particularly the case in overcoming obstacles for vulnerable people. Migrant workers and refugees are one of the areas of responsibility for Deirdre and me, so we will certainly discuss with Alan how that vulnerable group in particular can properly access a tribunal and deal with the issues that come up in a case.

Ms McGahan: The Justice Committee held a justice seminar in conjunction with Ulster University. Its research identified that we do not have effective representation out there for people who go to those tribunals. That is something that needs to be looked at as well if we are to deal with people who are vulnerable. There is a definite deficit when it comes to training people to represent vulnerable people. I am told that solicitors do not always have the wherewithal to do so. I really feel that that has to be given very serious consideration. As I said, the issue was raised with us during a justice seminar hosted by the Ulster University, and I think that it has produced a report on it. Regarding representation at tribunals, there is a gap out there.

Dr Scott: That point has been made to us. We sat on a very helpful round-table seminar that was organised by the Law Centre. Representatives of the Ulster Law Clinic were there, as were a number of representatives of Citizen's Advice organisations. There was quite a lot of feeling about that issue, and it is something that we need to look at in the round, with all the other issues. It is on our radar already, so we will look at that.

Ms McGahan: Will you keep the Committee up to date on any steps that you take to address those issues?

Dr Scott: I imagine that we will come to the Committee to provide our analysis of the responses to the tribunal consultation. I think that that is coming in February, and the final decisions may come a little bit after that. We will certainly keep the Committee apprised of developments in that area.

Ms McGahan: OK. Thank you.

Mr F McCann: I want to follow on from that. When people hear that new legislation — especially employment legislation — is going through, it raises emotions on both sides of the process. As legislators, we have to try to refine legislation continually, but we always have to put in protections for people.

Just before Bronwyn spoke, I noted down a point about the terminology that is used, such as "president", "chairperson" and "judge". You always think about the softer approach. The word "judge" has a psychological impact on people. Regardless of how many explanations they get, vulnerable people and people who may not be psychologically clued in will, when they hear the term "judge", automatically think legalistically and of the impact that it will have on them.

I am not sure why that change needs to be made. If you are trying to soften the approach and to get more people involved, the word "chairperson" will remove that fear. I cannot understand why we need to go down the road of using the word "judge".

Dr Scott: We also need to look at the overall dispute resolution —

Mr F McCann: Sorry for cutting across you. Does it give people any additional power because they are classed as "judges"?

Dr Scott: It does not. I was going to say that the tribunal is the place that we want to help people avoid. If we look at the other aspects of the draft Bill, there is early conciliation, which we hope will help people resolve their case before they reach the tribunal. There is also the option of the offer of neutral assessment to help people understand where their case might go.

In many cases, the tribunal will be the last resort. If people need or have to go to a tribunal, it is absolutely right that they should be able to go there, but we should look at other ways of resolving disputes. Once people end up at a tribunal, the reality is that it is a legal decision. We want to support vulnerable claimants and ensure that they have the guidance and support that they need.

On the point about the employment judge, I should point out that the Bill is only enabling legislation. It does not change the terminology. The regulations will do that. There is still room for that not to happen, but the Bill facilitates it, and, at this stage, we think that that is probably the way forward.

Mr F McCann: Alan, when we get to this stage with a Bill, words such as "judge", which come from the Department, usually stick. For many things, the title has an impact. Many of us deal with constituents who have to go to social security tribunals. The power behind it is the thing, but I agree with you that, if it can be sorted before they get to that stage, it should be.

Remember that, for some, the decision to go that far is the most important one in their life at that time. Nothing — titles or anything else — should stand in the way of people believing that they will get a correct and fair decision in their case.

To move on, this may be an unfair question, but do you think that removing the proposed changes to the Bill will give more protection to workers' rights?

Ms Walsh: Removing which?

Mr F McCann: There are a number of them, including zero-hour contracts and some other aspects.

Ms Walsh: The main thing that came out of the original draft Bill was collective redundancies. As you know, that was because the Minister could not get political consensus on that. We had thought that zero-hours contracts might go in as an amendment. It was never going to be in the original Bill, because of timelines and so on. We do not know whether any of those amendments will come through for the Bill.

Mr F McCann: My follow-up question was going to be on zero-hours contracts. I may have been wrong in my understanding that the Department was putting together amendments on zero-hour contracts to be tabled. If it was, I wanted to know when the Committee would get sight of them.

Ms Walsh: That depends on whether amendments come through. At the moment, we do not know whether that will be the case.

Ms Lo: I would like you to explain further a couple of terms in your briefing paper. You mentioned "neutral assessment": is that part of the early conciliation process?

Dr Scott: Yes. It is related to it, although it is not a compulsory part. It would enable people in dispute to agree to an assessment by an employment relations expert from the Labour Relations Agency's panel of arbitrators, who are well qualified but not judicial. Based on their experience of such issues, the arbitrators would be able to offer the parties an assessment of where they stand, possibly looking at the types of issues in their case and outcomes that could result. That would be done just to give parties a sense of where they were going and whether they would be better trying to resolve the matter between them rather than pursue the dispute further.

Ms Lo: How long is that conciliation and neutral assessment process?

Dr Scott: We still need to work on the early conciliation regulations, but we intend for the early conciliation parties to be contacted within a reasonably short time. They would be offered the service once they had applied to the Labour Relations Agency, although there would be no requirement for them to take up that offer. The option would then be that they have a month, usually, to resolve the matter. If they did not do that, they would be provided with a certificate that enabled them to go to the tribunal if they wished to.

Ms Lo: Would it jeopardise either side if they did not agree?

Dr Scott: There would be no repercussions. If people did not want to engage in conciliation, or if they did, but it does not work out for them, their opportunity to go to the tribunal would not be prejudiced.

Ms Lo: I very much welcome that. It would save time and money.

Dr Scott: Yes, that is the intention.

Ms Lo: Another term is "difficult conversations". Is that to do with warnings and so on? What do you mean by having those "difficult conversations"? Are you going to have guidance for employees to handle those?

Mr McKeown: That would normally centre around performance, conduct or discipline issues in the workplace. There was a recognition, I think, that there could be more guidance for employers to help them manage such situations. I suppose that it is another step in advance of getting into a case in which we need conciliation and then maybe a tribunal. If such conversations are managed well, it is an early step, and disputes will not escalate.

Ms Lo: A lot of organisations have proper disciplinary procedures, as advised by the Equality Commission and the Labour Relations Agency. Do you think that what they have now is not enough?

Mr McKeown: I think that that focus was probably around small to medium-sized employers. A lot of big companies have sophisticated HR teams and, as you say, a whole set of policies, procedures and codes. A lot of small to medium-sized employers would not have such access, and it would come at a cost if they had to buy it in. What we were thinking of originally there was guidance for that kind of network of employers.

Ms Lo: Thank you.

Mr Buchanan: I apologise for having missed your presentation. We are definitely going to have to do something about the traffic. The traffic coming in today was serious.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Speak to the Minister.

Mr Buchanan: Yes.

Quite a number of issues have been touched on today. Has the Bill the potential to add more bureaucracy for small businesses, or will it free up the situation for them? We do not want to be legislating so as to add more bureaucracy that, if they want to be more efficient and be driving forward, businesses do not really need.

Mr McKeown: Think of the review of employment law, which goes back over three years. It included consultation, stakeholder meetings, presentations and discussions with the Committee. Then the policy proposals were developed. Throughout that entire process, the team, to which I am a relative newcomer, has, under the Minister's guidance, been focused on better regulation principles and, at the same time, on maintaining the balance between supporting employers to develop the economy and supporting the rights of individual workers. That has been our focus during the review of employment law, and it has been driven by the Minister over the past three years.

We are reasonably confident that we are not adding to bureaucracy, and, in any case, we are not doing so for the sake of it. We hope that what we have presented in the Bill is balanced. Look at the key issues: public interest disclosure, protections, early conciliation and careers and apprenticeships. Those are all elements that we think are good for employers and employees, and we hope that we have brought that balance to bear and have not increased the regulatory burden.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): I have just a couple of points to make. I want to ask about clause 22, which deals with:

We spent a lot of time going through an awful lot of amendments at that stage. What are the details of that? I know that it is all very technical. There is reference to a "section 167ZV(2)(a)".

Dr Scott: Yes, that is because of the complexity of it. It is just correcting a few references that were out of sync. We are just making sure that the correct references are inserted.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): What do those references relate to?

Dr Scott: They relate to powers under the regulations, possibly the powers of HMRC.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Can you get us an explanatory note on that?

Dr Scott: Yes, I can do that. I can provide the Committee with information.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): That is grand.

Mr F McCann: I was reading the Bill this morning and could not remember what clause 13 means. It deals with:

I could not get it into my head what that means. What is meant by "not made in good faith"?

Ms Walsh: That provision is there to allow an industrial tribunal to reduce a compensation payment where people have made a public interest disclosure in which they are serving their personal interest, as opposed to the public interest. Does that answer your question?

Mr F McCann: I sort of get it. The inference to be drawn seems to be that maybe untruths are being told. Is that the case?

Ms Walsh: It is more to make the distinction. When people are upset about something that has happened in work and whistle-blowing takes place, there may not always be a distinction in their own head as to what their personal grievance is and what is in the public interest. I am not sure that, at times, any of us would understand what is in the public interest in an everyday way. That allows the industrial tribunal to make a judgement on it.

Mr F McCann: Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Some of the changes to the legislation that are being made go back to legislation from 1950. Can you provide us with a Keeling schedule?

Dr Scott: We are developing one at the minute. That will be sent to the Committee as soon as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Before 6 January, Alan?

Dr Scott: Certainly. I imagine that it will be done in the next week or so.

Mr McKeown: I can vouch for Alan having looked at that in the past couple of days.

The Chairperson (Mr Swann): Right. It will give us that clarity on what is being changed.

John, Alan and Deirdre, thank you very much. As I said, we will do what we can to make sure that we get the legislation into the timetable before dissolution.

Mr McKeown: Much appreciated. We are off to sort out the traffic now, Chair. [Laughter.]