Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): I welcome from the Women's Policy Group (WPG) Clare Moore, Alexa Moore, Alex Brennan and Caoímhe McNeill. I will hand over to you to make an opening statement. Committee members will then be invited to ask questions, if that is OK with you.

Ms Clare Moore (Women's Policy Group): That sounds great, Chair. Thanks very much, and thanks to you and the members for inviting us to give evidence on behalf of the Women's Policy Group. I sit on the group as a representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU).

The Women's Policy Group in Northern Ireland is a platform for women working in policy and advocacy roles to share our work and speak with a collective voice on key issues. It is made up of a wide range of sectors, organisations and individuals, including trade unions, grassroots women's organisations, the Women's Network, feminist campaigning organisations, NGOs and LGBT+ organisations, as well as human rights and equality organisations and individuals. Over the years, our important network has ensured that there has been good communication between politicians, policymakers and women's organisations on the ground. I will make a few brief introductory comments and then hand over to Alexa, Alex and Caoímhe.

We welcome the Bill, which, although not an outright ban, nevertheless provides much-needed protection for vulnerable workers, many of whom are women and are subject to poor employment practices from unscrupulous employers. Having a mechanism to move to banded hours that provide guaranteed minimum hours would give more certainty and financial security to many workers on these contracts. Although reliable data on zero-hours contracts in Northern Ireland is limited, we know that the contracts are used across a wide range of sectors, including hospitality and agri-food. They are also common in the social care sector, in which women predominate. The contracts give workers little flexibility and uphold unequal power dynamics between employer and employee, as acknowledged by the Taylor review.

Women already face vast levels of discrimination in the workplace, particularly around pregnancy and maternity leave, as well as through sexual harassment. That vulnerability is very much amplified for women on zero-hours contracts. They face the real threat that, if they complain about harassment and discrimination, they will not receive any more work from their employer. The Committee heard evidence last week from my colleague in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about the exploitation of vulnerable workers at the hands of rogue employers.

The Peace-funded project that Kevin Doherty talked about at the evidence session was a partnership between congress and a range of other organisations. It also gathered extremely worrying evidence of the abuse of women who, when they have become pregnant, have found that their hours suddenly decrease dramatically and who are absolutely terrified that, if they challenge that, they will face the real threat of having no work once their baby has been born. Moving to banded hours would give such women some degree of certainty.

The Bill represents an important step forward that will protect workers yet retain a degree of flexibility for good employers. As other organisations have mentioned in previous evidence, the Women's Policy Group has concerns about clause 14 and other aspects of the Bill, and Alexa will highlight those. As you are also all too aware, however, only a small percentage of the Northern Ireland workforce are on zero-hours contracts, and much more needs to be done to tackle low-paid, low-hours and precarious work. The Women's Policy Group therefore supports the full implementation of the clause on workers' rights contained in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), which, taken together with the rights in the Bill, has the potential to offer additional protections for workers, particularly women. We also commend the feminist recovery plan that the Chair mentioned. It was produced by the Women's Policy Group in 2020 and updated in 2021. It contains many recommendations to address the inequalities faced by women in work and society.

I will hand over to the rest of the delegation, who will elaborate on the issues. Alexa will go first.

Ms Alexa Moore (Women's Policy Group): Thank you, Clare, for the fabulous introduction. I also thank the Chair, Clerk and the entire Committee for having us in today. I am a human rights activist, as well as a member of the Women's Policy Group.

As Clare mentioned, we welcome the Bill and believe that it will help address the lack of security and the economic precarity experienced by many workers on zero-hours contracts. We see the Bill as an important first step in the process, while recognising that it is not introducing an outright ban. The move is particularly important for the Women's Policy Group, as we know that women are more likely than men to be in temporary, part-time and/or precarious working arrangements, as well as being more likely to report that they are underemployed. While I acknowledge that only 1·4% of people in Northern Ireland are on a zero-hours contract, the Bill will hopefully benefit women who are engaged in those contracts or in sectors in which they are prevalent. I will focus on some of the specific provisions that, we think, will benefit workers and where some clarification or changes may be required.

First, enabling the move to banded hours is an important provision that should create more security and provide workers with a minimum expectation of work on a weekly basis, moving away from the inherent precarity of zero-hours contracts. I also recognise that it is encouraging to see new article 112L in clause 10. It will enable workers to request a higher band placement if they have been working a higher number of hours than their contract and hopefully enable those on lower banded hours to have an easier route out of underemployment and in-work poverty.

The Women's Policy Group also recognises the positive impact of placing the onus on the employer to offer banded-hours contracts to workers who are entitled to them. Many workers are unaware of their rights, and many employers are, frankly, remiss in informing workers and upholding their rights. Making it a legal requirement for employers, however, will hopefully ensure that more workers can take up more secure working contracts.

As Clare alluded to, the Bill is not perfect. We have a specific concern about clause 14, which dictates that a move to banded hours means that a worker ceases to be classed as a zero-hours worker. While that is not problematic in itself, when combined with the loss of new rights being afforded to zero-hours workers through the Bill, it could place those on lower bands in a more disadvantaged position if they are unable to look for more work. For instance, clause 3 makes exclusivity terms on zero-hours workers unenforceable. That is a move that will enable those on very low incomes or contracts to seek more work and improve their standard of living. It is a massive step forward for the rights of workers on zero-hours contracts.

The concern comes in, however, where the protection from exclusivity clauses does not seem to transfer to workers on the new banded-hours contracts. That protection would be especially important in order to enable those on lower bands to seek more work. I am also slightly concerned that zero-hours workers may be unaware of the new rights if and when the Bill comes into effect. Strategies should be developed to ensure that zero-hours workers are aware of the unenforceability of any exclusivity clauses under which they previously worked.

I urge the consideration of further remedies for inclusion in clause 13, possibly including powers similar to those upholding the national minimum wage, under which employers who do not comply with the legislation may be fined by HMRC. Many workers are scared to kick up a fuss or take their employer to a tribunal for fear of retaliation or declining standards of employment, so any provisions that could be included in the Bill to encourage employers to comply proactively with the new regulations and the obligations contained therein would be welcomed by the Women's Policy Group.

While we believe that the new rights and the step closer to banning zero-hours contracts should be welcomed, much more needs to be done to tackle low-paid and precarious work and to support workers across Northern Ireland. I will pass over to Alexandra to discuss that further.

Ms Alex Brennan (Women's Policy Group): Thanks so much, Alexa, and thanks also to Clare for the introduction. Thank you, Chair, Clerk and Committee members for engaging with us. I am the coordinator of the Northern Ireland Women's Budget Group (NIWBG) and a member of the Women's Policy Group.

As my colleagues mentioned, we welcome the Bill as an important step towards strengthening workers' rights. We emphasise, however, that it is merely a step in addressing precarity and low pay in the labour market. The existence of other types of precarious work and the issues associated with such work will continue to detract from employers providing quality jobs in the labour market. That is evident through the issue of low pay.

Although the percentage of workers with hourly earnings of less than the minimum wage has decreased since the consultation on the Bill concluded in 2019 — it was 25·1% in 2019 and 21·3% at the last recording of it in 2021 — it is still the highest percentage of workers living below the living wage in any region or country in the UK. It perpetuates poverty and precarious work environments, which disproportionately impacts on women. A significant number of women in Northern Ireland are employed in work that is part-time and considered precarious. Specifically, 40% of women compared with 12% of men are in part-time work.

In January 2021, the UK Women's Budget Group released data showing that women on the lowest incomes are eight times more at risk of losing their job and that women working part-time are more likely to report that they had to take time off work with no pay when schools closed owing to the pandemic. That instability is exacerbated by the lack of affordable and accessible childcare, as it forces mainly part-time working women out of work. Four fifths of women in Northern Ireland aged between 35 and 49 with dependent children are more likely to work part-time. That lack of childcare is a direct barrier to women's equal and full participation in the labour market. Half of all women have been a carer at some point before the age of 46, which is 11 years earlier than for men. That could cause a reduction not only in hours but in time off, which could impact on chances of upward mobility in a workplace. It is notable that women over 40 are less likely to move into higher-paying managerial roles.

Barriers to women's full participation in the labour market also contribute to inequality in pay. In the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) report 'How Unequal? The unadjusted gender pay gap in earnings in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland', author Lisa Wilson noted that, owing to the high number of women in part-time work and the high number of men in full-time work, a comparison that should be considered when looking at the gender pay gap is that between the hourly earnings of women in part-time work and the hourly earnings of men in full-time work. When she looked at their median hourly earnings, she found a 26·3% gap in favour of men.

Married women make 75p less an hour than married men, which suggests a marriage premium for men and a marriage penalty for women. The gender pay gap also favours men with children over women with children, which is what we call the "motherhood penalty". Those impacts on equal pay, paired with the rising costs of childcare, are what drive women out of the labour force. It is therefore not a choice but rather a weighted decision that sees men more likely to stay in work because of the higher salaries that are afforded through those premiums.

In Northern Ireland, 35·4% of women have cited looking after the family and home as the reason for their inactive situation. That was the highest percentage in the UK. While those women are considered economically inactive, the unpaid work for which they have left the labour market is crucial to the economy. In 2015, unpaid carers in Northern Ireland saved the Government £4·6 billion or the cost of a second NHS.

The legislation on zero-hours contracts will help with precarity in the labour market to an extent. To address fully the issues, however, we need affordable and accessible childcare, a women's employment strategy, strengthened legislation to address the gender pay gap and the delivery of the other commitments on workers' rights that were made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement.

Thank you again for your time. I will now bring in my colleague Caoímhe, who will touch on wider workplace reforms.

Ms Caoímhe McNeill (Women's Policy Group): Thank you, Alex, and thank you to the Chair, the Clerk and Committee members for having us here today. I sit on the Women's Policy Group as a representative of UNISON.

The past two years have demonstrated how those on the most precarious employment contracts are those on whom society has relied most during the pandemic. Of people employed on a zero-hours contract, 19·7% are in the health and social care sector, 11·3% are in the wholesale and retail sector and 22·6% are in the accommodation and food industry, a sector that has been particularly impacted on by the pandemic. Those figures directly impact on women, who are more likely to be involved in those sectors, particularly in retail, in health and social care and in the service sector.

Throughout the pandemic, those sectors have been the bedrock of our society. No one could question that. Care workers on zero-hours contracts put their life on the line every day to help care for us and our families and to protect every one of us. Staff in the education sector, childcare workers and youth workers on zero-hours contracts kept our schools, childcare facilities and youth centres open so that our key workers could continue working throughout the pandemic. Charities and community organisations provided lifelines in many shapes and forms to the most vulnerable in our society. The prevalence of zero-hours contracts in those sectors creates significant issues for recruitment and retention that, in turn, have a negative impact on workforce planning,

and continuity of service delivery.

It is important to learn not only from the pandemic but from other countries in which similar legislation has proved to be successful. Currently, the UK is one of the few places in Europe where zero-hours contracts are both permitted and commonly used. In the Republic of Ireland, the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 prohibits the use of zero-hours contracts, with some exceptions. The 2018 Act offered protections for employees working in precarious employment, and we welcome the similarities to it that are proposed in the Bill on earnings compensation and banded-hours contracts. Despite concerns prior to the legislation's passing in the South, there has been no evidence to indicate that the banning of zero-hours contracts by that legislation has had a negative impact on the economy as a whole there.

Given the evidence that Alexa and Alex have presented today, it is clear that more needs to be done beyond the Bill to address zero-hours contracts, low-hours contracts, precarious employment and the impact of all of those on women. We need to see an economy that protects women in the workplace by providing adequate and affordable access to childcare, proper reporting on the gender pay gap, protections from poor working conditions in precarious sectors, which are most typically worked in by women, and jobs that pay a real living wage.

While we welcome the introduction of the Bill as an important stepping stone in creating protections for workers, I reiterate the Women's Policy Group's call, which Clare mentioned, for the full implementation of the commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach' to:

Thank you.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): Thank you all for your contributions. I also record the Committee's thanks for your engagement with us on the Bill and for your important contribution throughout the pandemic through the number of reports that you produced. They were comprehensive and insightful and produced important recommendations across a range of areas.

The Committee recognises that the Bill is one step in the process of addressing precarity in work, and it also wants to see taken forward the New Decade, New Approach commitments that all parties signed up to when they came back into the Executive, particularly those on tackling low pay, trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights. It is really important that those issues be taken forward. That will certainly be reflected in our legacy report from this mandate.

I have a couple of questions. The first reflects the fact that the issue with clause 14 has been highlighted to us. It was also highlighted to the Bill sponsor by ICTU, and she is willing to look at it. We will also give some consideration to further remedies. That is a potentially important issue that needs to be taken forward, and it relates to my first question. Clare, you referred to the work that Kevin also referred to last week. What do you think is required by way of awareness-raising to ensure that minority ethnic groups in particular, who may be more at risk of being exploited by such contracts, know that they can raise issues and seek recourse through tribunals or other means? What further do you think is required?

My second question concerns one of the points that have been raised with the Committee, which is that zero-hours contracts are not a bad thing, because they offer flexibility. Do you see any negatives with flexibility in the move to banded hours?

Ms C Moore: Thanks very much, Chair. Thanks for the comments that you noted, particularly on the willingness to address the loophole in clause 14. You are right that considerable issues are raised about the protection of vulnerable workers, and the rights that the Bill will hopefully afford them will not necessarily address those issues, so that is important.

The evidence collected by the Peace project in which ICTU participated was very much saying that the onus should not be on vulnerable workers to take cases forward to a tribunal. Even if those vulnerable workers have the protection of a trade union representing them, it is extremely difficult for them to do that. They fear retaliation, they fear being penalised and they fear that they will not get further contracts. That places them in real danger from poverty and all sorts of other issues.

The issues that Alexa raised about looking at potential remedies to take the burden and responsibility away from the vulnerable workers and at mechanisms such as those that apply to the enforcement of the national minimum wage — issues that were also raised by my colleagues from the trade union movement and that were raised in the Taylor review — merit further consideration. We should definitely do that. That could be looked at, and I know that the Committee has considered that.

It is also important to look at the issue of trade union recognition and collective bargaining, which we know also protects vulnerable workers from exploitation by rogue employers.

Would somebody else from our delegation like to come in on the point about flexibility?

Ms A Moore: I am happy to do that, Clare. Some workers choose the zero-hours or low-hours contracts because of the flexibility that they offer. That is why I specifically called out new article 112L, which allows workers to request a reconsideration if their hours have increased or if the average number of hours that they have been doing over the reference period is higher than the banded-hours contract that they were allocated when they first requested to be moved from their zero-hours contract.

The three-month qualifying period means that, even if workers work a lower number of hours for a short time, there will always be another reconsideration or qualifying period during which they can increase their hours and move to a higher banded-hours contract.

Again, it is not perfect and it will not work for some workers, but those two elements of the Bill allow for a little flexibility. Hopefully, those two aspects of the Bill will help more vulnerable or marginalised communities or folks who are going through different aspects of their life when that flexibility may be required, such as pregnancy, having kids or growing their families. There is always more that can be done, but, on the move from zero-hours contracts, those two aspects of the Bill definitely keep some of the flexibility whilst providing a little more security for the workers who are on the contracts.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): OK. Thank you for both of those answers. They are useful to us.

On the New Decade, New Approach commitments and other employment issues that have been raised by us and others over the past two years, we have been told that the Department is looking at doing a broader employment refresh or update in terms of legislation. A number of issues need to be considered as part of that, particularly taking away the burden on workers to pursue remedies and ensuring that employers are held to account.

The Women's Policy Group has also taken the lead on broader work on the role of women in economic recovery. I suggest that the Committee puts that into its legacy report as something to be picked up as early as possible in the next mandate, because it is important work and has an important contribution to make.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you all for your engagement with us. If I may, I will broaden the discussion in two ways.

First, you have made it clear that you think that the Bill makes an important contribution to issues and imbalances but does not cover everything. It would be useful to know if there is a rank order of other issues that need to be addressed in the next mandate. For example, would gender budgeting make a big difference?

The other area is the extent to which you feel that your voices are being heard. You provided weighty and detailed analysis in the 'COVID-19 Feminist Recovery Plan', but it did not get the attention that it deserved at the right levels. I am also conscious that you are under huge pressure because of the volume of consultations. That, perhaps, restricts your ability to give the detailed, knowledgeable responses that you are capable of giving, because you just do not have the necessary resources and time to give them.

Ms C Moore: Thanks for that, Mike. I will make a brief comment, after which Alexandra may want to come in, particularly on the gender budgeting issue that you raised.

I am not sure that we have a rank order necessarily, but we certainly have a lot of recommendations to make. The Chair commended the feminist recovery plan, which runs, I think, to nearly 150 pages; it is a massive piece of work and has summaries for each Department There is one for the Department for the Economy that outlines and summarises the recommendations relevant to it. We do not have the time to go through those today, but we certainly need to highlight issues such as childcare — the affordable, accessible and flexible childcare that is so badly needed — tackling occupational segregation and bringing forward the gender pay gap reporting regulations that were promised in the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. There is a wide range of things that we need to do to tackle a lot of the issues that we discussed.

I thank you for raising the issue of getting our voice heard. In the feminist recovery plan, reports were written for each Department in which questions were asked and recommendations made. It is fair to say that we have not necessarily had the engagement that we had hoped for. That very much needs to be looked at, because the group is bringing forward extremely important evidence and research, and it is important that that is heard and addressed.

Ms Brennan: Clare, I completely agree with you. Thanks for bringing me in.

Mike, thank you for bringing up the issue of gender budgeting. You are absolutely right: we could implement tools on gender budgeting. For those who do not know, gender budgeting is a tool that can help to recognise systemic disadvantages and lead to budgets and policies that promote greater gender equality because it looks at the gendered impacts of spending and revenue-raising decisions and how to use those mechanisms to bring about gender equality. Gender budgeting could be applied to the processes through which the other commitments from the New Decade, New Approach agreement were delivered or to a larger employment strategy or women's employment strategy — something along those lines. It is crucial to have gender budgeting implemented throughout every stage of that process, because, as we have highlighted today, the experience of women in the labour market is entirely different from that of men. For that experience to be properly articulated in legislation, a gendered lens would need to be applied throughout the policy decision-making process. Therefore, yes, gender budgeting would help significantly, not only to bring those issues to the table but to help to legislate for them.

Mr O'Dowd: Chair, you covered the point that I wanted to raise. It was about how we enforce legislation, and I note the answer that was given.

I was looking at the Equal Pay Act 1970, given your comments about women earning on average around 9·6 % less than men. Having legislation in place is one thing, but making sure that it is enforced is the most important thing. However, I noted your answer. Thank you.

Mr Weir: Thank you for the presentation and the information. I appreciate that one of the key messages is that, while the subject of zero-hours contracts is important in itself, it is one component of a wider picture.

I will make one comment and then probe two areas. On clause 14 specifically, it is fair to say that no one on the Committee wants to see any inadvertent or unintended loopholes appearing.

It is right that we do not create a misleading impression, given the time circumstances, with the mandate due to end in just over a month. The Bill will not make it to the statute books before then, but it may well be a conduit for what comes in the near future.

On the issue of what is in clause 14, it is a common view that we do not want to create a situation in which, by creating some rights, we inadvertently take others away. I suppose that one of the things that we are trying to explore is, given that there is probably a level of ambiguity — I will put it that way — in clause 14, whether the concerns that have been raised are borne out in the legislation or whether drafting changes are required to ensure that, for example, the ban on exclusivity, which, I think, everyone is very much in favour of, does not accidentally fall out for some workers. That is just a comment.

I want to ask two questions. There may not be an easy way around the subject of my first question because there would have to be some level of qualification period. I will ask you a question that I also asked of the representatives of ICTU.

Are there any concerns that the qualification period of three months could inadvertently advantage less responsible employers? That is to say, if there is knowledge that somebody has to be in a job for a continuous period of three months to qualify for a banded contract, employers who are keen to avoid that and are happy not to give their workers rights may have a constant short-term churn of employees where they employ them for two or two and a half months before saying, "We are going to pull the plug on that for a while", just to make sure that they do not qualify for a banded contract. Do you have any concerns about people trying to exploit that potential route, which would put irresponsible employers in a more advantageous position than the more responsible ones?

Ms C Moore: You raise a good point. The Bill's provisions will not solve every problem, including those caused by rogue employers who exploit workers in the way that you described. The Bill is not a panacea, but it is a stepping stone. It is an area that we will, where possible, watch very closely. As the Chair said, there is also a commitment to look at other employment rights that we have fallen behind on in Northern Ireland. Doing that in tandem with, hopefully, the enacting of the provisions in the Bill will be very important.

That is a quick reflection. I am not sure whether other members of our delegation want to come in as well.

Ms A Moore: I am happy to come in on that. When we chatted through it, we considered that the three-month qualifying period could cause some issues with churn. There is no perfect solution. As Clare said, the Bill is a really important first step, but it is by no means a panacea or something that will solve all our problems.

The issue is the culture of employers and the culture of how employment is managed in Northern Ireland and across the UK in terms of the value of workers and the value to employers of going through that churn, trying to recruit more people and so on. If we make it so that the value proposition of firing workers after two or three months is less than that of keeping them on, supporting them and growing them in the organisation or business — whatever kind of business it is — we can get to a point where that kind of exploitation and unscrupulous employment is not an issue. That will not be solved by the Bill. The Bill is a really good first step, but employment culture is something that we will need to think about in the future. On the whole, however, the three-month qualifying period, while it has issues, is still a good thing.

Mr Weir: I agree, in that I suspect that there is no route around the problem other than to have some form of trigger point. It comes back to the old phrase — I cannot remember the exact wording — about the danger of making the perfect the enemy of the good in striving to do something.

I want to raise a second point and maybe look slightly at the flip side of the coin. Although the percentage of the workforce on zero-hours contracts is, at least, much smaller in Northern Ireland than it is elsewhere, which is one of the advantages, you clearly highlighted that zero-hours contracts, particularly in some of the sectors where they most readily apply and are more prevalent, affect a disproportionate number of female workers compared with other sectors. You also highlighted that that, along with other issues, can create a level of vulnerability for female workers. There is a danger that, if they are seen to complain, there are routes that employers can use to exploit them.

You highlighted the impact on female employees. Maybe this is outside the remit of your group, but has the Women's Policy Group had any engagement with female employers to see whether there are any views or aspects that are specific to female employers on the issue?

Ms C Moore: Again, you raise a good point. Some representatives who sit on the Women's Policy Group are also employers. That is important to consider.

On the engagement with wider employer representative organisations, we have links, for example, with Women in Business and Business in the Community. You are right that it is important to reach out and engage in a more structured way with those organisations. That would be welcome for us as well.

Mr Weir: The following point may be more for the Committee, as I do not know whether there has been direct contact between the Committee and relevant organisations on the issue. I think that it would be a fair summary to say that, largely speaking, your position reflects the impact on female employees and the point of view of workers. Organisations may or may not want to contribute directly to the discussion on that, but the Committee could seek the views of representative bodies that look after female employers to see if there is another side to the coin. It may be that there is not. That is more a point for the Committee than it is for you.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks, everyone, for your information. A lot of stuff has been covered.

We had representatives of Retail NI and the hospitality sector before the Committee last week or the previous week, and, although I am not quoting them, they more or less indicated that there was no major issue in their sectors. I do not want you to answer for their thoughts, but do you have any experience in their sectors? Is there an issue in those sectors?

Ms C Moore: Thanks for the question. I did not see the evidence that was given by Retail NI. In my opening remarks, I alluded to the fact that the drilling down into the data on zero-hours contracts in Northern Ireland has not been done to the extent that it has been done in the rest of the UK because you are looking at such a small sample of workers.

Of the between 1·4% and 2% who are on zero-hours contracts, I cannot provide the percentages for particular sectors. We can speak only from our experience of the Women's Policy Group and our individual organisations. In some of the retail sector, there has been a move, at least informally, to look at the idea of banded hours. Maybe that is something that the retail sector and industries have got together on, and, if so, that is a good thing. Hopefully, the legislation that will be enacted after this process will assist with that.

I do not know if that directly answers your question, but it is something that we are aware of, and, of course, we have links to those groups and organisations.

Ms A Moore: If I could come in briefly, the reality is that, because such a small number of workers are on zero-hours contracts, if you asked any industry body about the impact in their industry, they would say that it is low. That does not negate the suffering, insecurity and precarity experienced by the small number of workers who are on zero-hours contracts; it just means that they are not more widespread.

We predominantly see them being used in sectors like hospitality, social care and places where there is a lot of agency work. There are a lot of women in those roles. That is why it is an issue for us. I have worked in LGBT and trans communities for a long time. I do not like the focus on how many or what percentage of them are on such contracts, because every person who experiences hardship or difficulties in their place of employment should be supported. No matter how small the issue is, I am glad that it is being dealt with. I hope that this will be a positive step forward for the employment and security of workers in retail, hospitality, social care and other places where the contracts are used.

Ms Brennan: I completely agree with what Clare and Alexa have said. As Alexa said, because such a small percentage of workers in Northern Ireland are on zero-hours contracts, it may seem that it is not prevalent in every sector. However, it is important to note that a high percentage of those who take up the working roles in those sectors are women. Even if they are not on zero-hours contracts, they may still be in precarious part-time or low-paid work, as I said in my evidence. The zero-hours contract legislation would be a significant stepping stone in dealing with that precarity in workplace environments, but there will still be barriers or precarious situations for women in those sectors. That needs to be dealt with in the future.

Ms McNeill: I will finish answering the question by highlighting the statistics again. Some 11·3% of those on zero-hours contracts are employed in the wholesale and retail sector. Yes, 11·3% of 12,000 people is not a huge number of employees, but it is still the sector with the third highest number of employees on zero-hours contracts in Northern Ireland. As my colleagues have said, it might not be a massive issue for the sector, but it is a massive issue for those workers. While those workers may still get a significant number of hours, regardless of their zero-hours contracts, particularly in retail, the contracts provide a level of insecurity, instability and financial insecurity that causes them an inordinate amount of stress. Therefore we would welcome any changes that could help protect even the smallest number of workers in that sector.

The Chairperson (Dr Archibald): No other members have indicated that they want to come in, so I thank you again for taking the time to talk to us and share your evidence.

Mike raised a point about how Departments have taken up the recommendations from the feminist recovery plan. I will ask the Committee to agree to write to the other Committees, asking them to write to their Departments about the recommendations for them. Obviously, we will do that for the Department for the Economy, if members are happy to do that.

Thanks again for taking the time to talk to us. It has been really useful. The Committee will further consider the issues highlighted in relation to clause 14 and further remedy. Thank you.