Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I welcome our colleagues from the Department for the Economy: Colin Jack, director of business employment regulation division; Kellie Sprott, employment conditions and collective rights; Gareth Dillon, EU exit and work-life balance; and Dearbhla Redmond, employment relations policy and legislation. We are delighted to welcome you. I will hand over to you.

Mr Colin Jack (Department for the Economy): Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Committee today about the "good jobs" employment rights consultation. The Committee will be familiar with the Minister's economic mission, which contains four key objectives, one of which is to increase the proportion of the working-age population in good jobs. The Minister wants to modernise our employment law framework to support the delivery of the good jobs objective.

Research has demonstrated the benefits of good jobs for everyone in the economy. Good jobs can help to ensure that workers and their families can rely on a decent and secure income. They can also help to attract and retain people in the workforce by helping them to balance their work and home commitments. Evidence has also demonstrated that good work can boost workers' productivity and health. It can further benefit businesses by ensuring that there is a level playing field, which will ensure that good employers do not face a competitive disadvantage.

The Minister launched the consultation on the "good jobs" employment rights Bill on 1 July 2024. That invited views on a wide range of potential legislative and non-legislative interventions, with 31 issues in the consultation document. The consultation invited views on four aspects of a good job, as defined by the Carnegie framework: terms of employment, pay and benefits, the employee's voice and work-life balance. The other three aspects are health, safety and psychosocial well-being; job design and the nature of the work; and social support and cohesion.

The consultation ran for 13 weeks rather than the standard eight weeks. That was in recognition of the consultation's scale and the fact that it took place over the summer period. We, as officials, and the Minister engaged with a range of stakeholders prior to the formal consultation and during the consultation period, when we undertook a further series of stakeholder engagements. That has been invaluable in helping the Department and the Minister to gain a better understanding of the issues that are important to various stakeholders.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry to interrupt, Colin. How was the pre-consultation consultation that you mentioned carried out?

Mr Jack: We made contact initially with the engagement forum that is convened by the Labour Relations Agency (LRA). It contains a balance of employer and employee representatives who are drawn from the main business organisations and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). We had a range of engagement meetings with all those individual bodies and with the employer organisations. We had a series of meetings with ICTU as well. The pre-consultation focused primarily on those business organisations and union organisations, but the document contains proposals for family-related leave entitlements, and we engaged with the organisations that have a particular interest in those, such as some of the organisations that deal with babies in neonatal care and carers' organisations. In particular, we had quite a lot of engagement with Carers NI on the proposals on carers' leave.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): That is important, but you are not defining that as formal pre-consultation engagement.

Mr Jack: That was informal engagement with particular stakeholders prior to the formal consultation exercise.

The consultation closed on 30 September. We received 192 responses, and we continue to analyse them in detail. Some of them are detailed and lengthy. The organisations that engaged obviously put a lot of effort into their responses, so we need to do justice to that. The responses and our analysis of them will help to inform the Minister's decisions on the way forward and on the content of the employment rights Bill that, he proposes, the Department will introduce, along with any supporting programme of secondary legislation or non-legislative activities. We expect that work to be completed in the next couple of months. We will provide a further briefing to the Committee when it is and when the Minister is ready to take decisions.

The Department recognises the importance of the Committee's role in scrutinising legislation. This is the start of a long period of engagement that we will have with you. We want to work proactively with members as they fulfil their role. Given the significance of the Bill that we propose to introduce, we want to take the opportunity today to update the Committee on the progress with the consultation analysis at what is still a relatively early stage in the process. We recognise that members will wish to discuss some of the consultation proposals in more detail, and we are happy to take questions on them. This is also an opportunity for us to hear any views that Committee members have on the proposals in the document, and we are keen to hear them in advance of any policy decisions that the Minister will take on the content of the Bill.

We provided a short written summary of our interim analysis to the Committee in advance of today's meeting. That summary information provides an interim update on the topics for which the analysis is advanced enough to let us provide it. We are happy to take questions on any of the issues that are not covered by that interim update; there are just two or three. I want to stress an important caveat: while our consultation analysis is at an advanced stage, it is still ongoing, and the summary information and statistical information in the paper that you received will be subject to further refinement and review as our analysis work is completed. As members will be aware, responses were received from a broad range of stakeholders, including trade unions, business and employer representative groups, individual employers, private individuals, legal and HR professionals and the community and voluntary sector. We want to place on record the Department's appreciation to all who took the time to respond.

My second important caveat is that, as this is an interim analysis, some of the information sets out the number of respondents who expressed a particular view on a particular topic. The fuller analysis will incorporate further nuances that take additional account of the arguments that are put forward by respondents in writing. When we present those kinds of percentages, numbers and so on, we recognise that some respondents represent large numbers of people and members and will have canvassed widely among their membership to help inform their response. That is a point that, I think, they would make, and it is important that we make it: one response does not necessarily equal another response, as it were. The views expressed in the responses represent the views of a wider pool. It should also be noted that the 192 responses included a number of campaign letters from individuals and organisations that expressed views on specific topics.

Members have received a written update on the interim analysis, so I will speak briefly about each of the four themes. Theme A, entitled "Terms of Employment", examined various issues relating to terms of employment. The world of work has changed significantly in recent years, and that section looked at modernising our laws to deal with precarious work, job security and providing greater clarity about conditions of employment. Committee members will be aware of the Minister's commitment to replace zero-hours contracts with contracts that provide flexibility and protect workers' rights. The issue attracted a relatively large number of consultation responses.

Respondents expressed a variety of preferences and possible policy options in this area. However, a majority of respondents, including employers and trade unions, agreed with the Minister's overarching objective of replacing zero-hours contracts with contracts that provide flexibility and protect workers' rights. As the consultation indicates, the negative aspects of zero-hours contracts could be addressed in a variety of ways. The Minister will consider a range of those options, and we would welcome any views that Committee members may have on which would be most appropriate.

The practice known as "fire and rehire" has been topical in recent years. That has led to a need to examine whether the existing legal framework for redundancy and dismissal is sufficient. The majority of respondents felt that some kind of intervention was appropriate, but there was a wide divergence of views on what form the appropriate action should take. The consultation sought views on measures that would enhance protections for agency workers and strengthen the existing enforcement mechanisms that are available to the Employment Agency Inspectorate (EAI) in the Department. There appeared to be broad support from respondents for intervention in that area, but, again, they highlighted specific points for consideration.

Theme B is entitled "Pay and Benefits". That section of the consultation sought views on actions related to improving an individual's overall pay and benefits. The consultation sought views on whether legislation should be introduced to ensure the fair and transparent allocation of tips, gratuities and service charges to workers. Responses were generally in favour of action in that area. Some respondents commented on issues that should be considered when we are determining appropriate actions in that area. The consultation also invited views on whether to extend the reference period used to calculate holiday pay from 12 to 52 weeks to better reflect average pay on an annual basis, and there was general support for making that change.

The Department invited views on the record-keeping requirements placed on employers to demonstrate compliance with the working-time regulations that relate to hours worked. There was a divergence of views on that between employers and their representative organisations, which were broadly in favour of replicating legislation in Britain to clarify that it is not necessary to keep detailed records in a particular format, and those from a worker or trade union background, who favoured strengthening the reporting requirements.

The Department also sought views on whether existing legislation relating to working time remained effective in promoting a healthy work-life balance.

The majority of respondents expressed support for a statutory code of practice, but some highlighted issues that, they felt, warranted further consideration, should such a course of action be adopted.

I will move on to theme C, which is entitled "Voice and Representation". A full chapter of the consultation was dedicated to voice and representation, reflecting the importance that the Minister places on it. In his initial statement on the economic mission in February 2024, he made it clear that strengthening the role of trade unions is an important priority for him, and this chapter reflects that. The Department's view, which is supported by research and evidence, is that, when employees are involved in the decisions that affect their workplaces, those workplaces become more productive and the workforce becomes more resilient in responding to, for example, business reorganisation or change. That, in turn, can lead to retention rates of skilled staff increasing, and that stability can contribute to growth. The chapter sought views on issues that affect good workplace relationships, trade union operations and the democratic structures in workplaces more generally. There was a greater divergence of views on some of the specific proposals in this chapter of the consultation, and many of the respondents offered commentary on the rationale for those views. The Department is considering that in its further analysis, which will help to inform the Minister's decision about the way forward.

The final theme — theme D — is entitled "Work-life Balance". That chapter of the consultation sought views on the ways in which the legal framework could be enhanced to promote a healthy work-life balance that allows an individual to balance their work life with their family life. The consultation sought views on making it easier for workers to request flexible working from their first day of employment rather than after six months of employment, which is the current position; introducing a new right to statutory leave and pay for eligible employees with children in neonatal care; introducing a new right to a week's leave for eligible employees with caring responsibilities and whether that should be paid or unpaid; enhancing redundancy protections for those on pregnancy or family leave; and amending existing rules on paternity leave to increase flexibility and encourage uptake. Broadly speaking, there was support in principle for most of those measures, but there was a variety of comments and suggestions from respondents that they recommended the Department take into account. As part of our further analysis, consideration will be given to any points that were raised to ensure that fully informed policy decisions can be made.

I will turn to the timeline and next steps. I have just given a very high-level summary of the information that arose from our analysis. There is more detail in the paper that we provided to the Committee. There are four of the 31 topics in the consultation on which we have not yet been able to provide summary information to the Committee: employment status; the right to a written statement of employment particulars; the right to a payslip; and a call for information on the current Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). The Department is still analysing some of the more general comments that respondents made in addition to their responses to the questions in the consultation document, which include there being a need to consider the timing and implementation of any legislative changes in a way that recognises employers' capacity to adapt given the volume of issues that are likely to be included in the Bill. Respondents offered views on other priorities for employment law, and the Department is reviewing those matters.

When making his policy decisions, the Minister is focused on developing good policy that gives workers appropriate rights and protections, while recognising the needs of employers and, in particular, of small businesses. The need to balance those sometimes competing interests will have a key influence on the development of policy solutions. The Committee is aware, I think, that the Minister hopes to introduce the Bill to the Assembly by January 2026 or earlier, if there is scope to do so. He hopes to be in a position to seek Executive clearance on the policies for inclusion in the Bill and agreement to the drafting by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) in the next two to three months. That will allow the OLC to commence drafting the Bill. We will, of course, update the Committee throughout the process and, in particular, once the departmental response document has been finalised to include the Minister's policy decisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to update the Committee. We are happy to take any questions that members have.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you very much indeed, Colin and colleagues, for that.

Colin, I will start with the consultation and the responses to it. Was the Department disappointed with the low level of responses to the consultation?

Mr Jack: I would not describe it as a low level of response. We got responses from all of the key stakeholders that we expected to get responses from. It has to be borne in mind that a lot of the organisations that have responded have many member organisations. All of the main business organisations responded on behalf of their members. The trade union movement responded collectively through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and individual unions also responded. We are not at all disappointed. We feel that the response was fairly healthy.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): From looking at the breakdown, I see that, from the tens of thousands of businesses out there and people who are employers, 66 of the responses came from an employer. The Bill contains significant proposals in 17 areas of law that, if passed, will impact on businesses across Northern Ireland. Would the Department not have expected a larger response from them, given the impact that the proposed legislation may have on them?

Mr Jack: The response is not out of line with any previous consultation exercises on employment rights issues. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) certainly responded, as did a range of sectoral business organisations. We normally expect those representative bodies to respond on behalf of their members. Some of the responses that come in from individual businesses are largely to say that they endorse the response from their representative body.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You mentioned the FSB. It is but one of a number of the larger groups that, in its response to the consultation document, cited the consultation period taking place during the summer as being a matter of concern. The FSB's response notes that it took place during the general election and the July holidays in Northern Ireland. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted the fact that it was trying to consult its members during the summer period. What was the rush or the rationale for having the consultation period during the summer?

Mr Jack: The Minister is on record on a number of occasions as highlighting both the fact that a short period of the mandate remains and the challenge of getting a Bill through the Assembly and achieving Royal Assent in the remainder of the mandate. We were ready to go with a consultation document towards the end of June and the beginning of July. The announcement of the general election came when we were almost ready to proceed. This is a devolved issue, and the Minister had already announced his intention to go ahead with a consultation exercise over the summer. It was important to stick with the timetable to make sure that the Committee and the Assembly will have time to scrutinise the Bill in the required detail in the remainder of the mandate.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): One hundred per cent. Does the engagement forum, which you mentioned at the start of your remarks, have a formal role in the process?

Mr Jack: It is convened by the Labour Relations Agency and —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Is that under the instruction or under the auspices of the Department?

Mr Jack: Yes, the Labour Relations Agency is an arm's-length body of the Department. Any time that the engagement forum has been established or modified and reconstituted, that has been done by the LRA in consultation with the Department and in agreement with the bodies represented on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Was it reconstituted for the purposes of the Bill?

Mr Jack: It was reconstituted around the time that we were starting to engage on the Bill, so, in fact, the prospect of having a consultation exercise on a Bill was discussed with the engagement forum at its first meeting after it was reconstituted; in fact, that was, I think, before the end of January last year. The Minister convened a meeting with that forum and invited some other organisations to come along to it. He wanted to brief them early in his term of office.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Are there agreed terms of reference for that engagement forum for this purpose or for its wider purpose, following its reconstitution, between the LRA and its members? I was searching online for agreed terms of reference but could not find them.

Mr Jack: It has been refining the terms of reference. I understand that a version of the terms of reference will be agreed by the forum at a meeting tomorrow.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): So there are no agreed terms of reference.

Mr Jack: It has been working on the basis of draft terms of reference, which have been refined, but I am not aware of any major issues that need to be changed. It has been discussing textual amendments and so on.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Given how long it has been in place and the fact that we are now at the end of the consultation period, I would have thought that there would already be agreed terms of reference for that group, but you hope that that might be in place in the coming days.

Thank you for providing the partial analysis of the responses to date. You have included in some sections a percentage breakdown of the responses in favour of the Minister's proposals and those against them, but there are other sections for which you have not provided that breakdown. It makes it difficult for the Committee to interrogate properly the responses to date if there is no commonality in how you present the figures. In section 3, in particular, no reference is made in the breakdown to the views in the consultation responses, but in other sections it is. A cynic, which I am not, might say that you provide the figures when they are in favour of what the Minister proposes but do not when it comes to issues on which people may have a differing view. There is a long process to go through before legislation is produced, and that is ongoing, but, if the Committee is to properly scrutinise issues and give its views on them, there needs to be commonality in how those breakdowns and figures and the evidence are presented to it.

Mr Jack: As I said, we have brought an early version of the analysis to the Committee. We will refine that in the final response document from the Department. You mentioned the section on voice and representation in particular. I think that some of the stakeholders would say, "Well, we represent hundreds of thousands of members". If you count their response as one and another response from an individual as one, the number of responses may not be all that meaningful to the Minister's decision.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I get that. Attributing weight to those who have responded is the right thing to do, but you need to provide the Committee with the metric that the Minister will use to do that. If we are going to provide figures and breakdowns for one section, we need to know how we are weighting them in the other sections.

Mr Jack: We will certainly take that into account.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Perfect.

I will pick up on a couple of the responses that you mentioned. You said that the overarching responses on zero-hours contracts were in line with what the Minister was proposing, but you provide some further detail in the report: only 30 respondents agreed that there should be an outright ban on zero-hours contracts, while 80 respondents did not agree with them. When will we see, as outworkings of some of those responses, what the Minister is actually proposing? A lot of that was not a consultation, because the Minister did not outline his proposals; it was almost a call for evidence. He asked people for their views. It is hard to respond to a consultation when you are not given any options to respond to. Is it fair to say that what was carried out was more of a call for evidence than a consultation?

Mr Jack: On some issues, it was a call for evidence — the document was clear about that — whereas, regarding other issues, similar changes have already been made in other jurisdictions, and the document was making more concrete proposals. A range of models for zero-hours contracts were set out, and the Minister was keen to get views on which of those people would favour. He plans to take that all into account and come to a decision in the next couple of months.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): I am just reading the document. Does the Minister or Department have a list of the day-1 rights that they support or want to see? Obviously, there was a call for evidence about what people think they should be, but what is the official departmental view on the Bill?

Mr Jack: There are differences in day-1 rights on different issues. One of the key ones is the day-1 right to request flexible working, which is a significant improvement in the ability of the employee to request flexible working arrangements.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Is there an exhaustive list of what the Minister is proposing?

Mr Jack: We can certainly put a list together. We do not have that with us today.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): This is my final question, because I am conscious that there are other colleagues. The paper that you have provided states:

Can you provide a list to the Committee of what the Minister is proposing or considering by way of guidance or secondary legislation?

Mr Jack: Yes, we can do that. Dearbhla, do you want to add anything?

Ms Dearbhla Redmond (Department for the Economy): Yes. Some of that will depend on the Minister's decisions in each area. He may decide that something could be done through guidance. Some of the options would require secondary legislation rather than primary, if a decision was taken. We can provide further information on that, but some of it will depend on the policy decisions made by the Minister.

Mr Jack: For example, we have been aware for a long time that one thing that we could do by secondary legislation is the right to a payslip. Although most employees receive payslips, there is no statutory right for them to get a payslip. That is one measure that we could do by secondary legislation, and we will certainly look to do that in parallel with the primary legislation that will be necessary for the bulk of the measures.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you all very much for that.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you very much for your update. I know that this is an early analysis and that we will probably go into much more detail and find out some more details about the sections. This is a really complex Bill. It is very challenging. Given the attention in the consultation responses to the alignment with GB, it is a really legitimate concern for those who are responding. What steps have you taken in relation to the workers' rights legislation that is coming through the UK Parliament? There is a real risk that we could catch up in our legislation only to fall behind as the UK legislation progresses. How do we align and make sure that employees have the same rights as those elsewhere?

Mr Jack: It is a bit of a moving target, in a sense, in that a lot of what is in the consultation document is analysis of issues where legislation has changed in GB. However, employment law is a devolved issue and there are some existing differences, and it is fairly likely that, after this process, there will continue to be differences. Those will be through decisions that the Minister and the Assembly will take on that.

A number of provisions in the Employment Rights Bill that the UK Government have published are, in a sense, setting out a model of the way forward on some of the issues that we have consulted on in our consultation document. The Bill that is going through Westminster has the benefit of showing us a model that is one of the options that potentially could be adopted on those issues, but that will not necessarily be the case. The Minister will not necessarily want to go with that model in every case. He will want to look at the needs of the Northern Ireland economy and decide what is most appropriate here.

Ms McLaughlin: Have you done an analysis of how we are deviating from that?

Mr Jack: We have not done a very detailed analysis of that. I am aware that there are, for example, law firms that have done that type of analysis and have put information on their websites. There are a lot of interested commentators in this area. In the consultation document, we attempted to set out the position in Britain, in the South and in other relevant countries. We have examples from New Zealand and from other European countries. The Minister wants to learn from best practice on these issues wherever he can. In a number of responses and at a number of the engagement events that we were involved in, the point was made that employers and employer organisations often find alignment with employment law in Britain beneficial. The Minister has heard that point, and we certainly want to develop an employment law framework that is well understood by all the stakeholders.

Ms McLaughlin: That is where the business community's concerns are; it is about how you are going to articulate to the business community —. Some of the respondents say that there is a risk that the Bill risks imposing considerable compliance burdens on them. How are you going to mitigate that risk and communicate with the business community to reassure it that that is not the intention of the Bill?

Mr Jack: We had the formal consultation process, we have the engagement forum, and we have regular contact with all the main business organisations. Part of the reason why the engagement forum is taking time to refine its terms of reference is that we see it very much as having an ongoing role and being our key sounding board on employment relations in particular and, potentially, other, wider issues in the economy, so —.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Such as what?

Mr Jack: Anything related to the world of work, I suppose. For example, in the summer, the forum put out a statement in response to the rioting. It is interested in any issue of employment relations, even if it is one that is not specifically in DFE's remit; there were issues around racism and so on, where the policy responsibility rests elsewhere. To some extent, it is for the employer and employee organisations to decide what they want to use the engagement forum for.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): In advance of terms of reference being agreed, we cannot say that it speaks on particular issues or on behalf of organisations. Without terms of reference that stakeholders have signed up to, it would be slightly inappropriate to say that the forum can determine matters of policy in Northern Ireland that are outside the Department's remit and outside agreed terms of reference.

Mr Jack: Yes. It is an engagement forum, so it is a stakeholder that will feed in views in that format. It is about providing a forum for discussion between employer and employee organisations and giving feedback to us. There are lots of other ways in which we get that dialogue with the business community. The Minister regularly meets business organisations, and we have an open door to them.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Sinéad; apologies.

Ms McLaughlin: We will be taking evidence later this morning from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, and we will probably continue that wider engagement so that we can properly scrutinise the contents of the Bill.

I will ask about data again. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) data suggests that 67% of jobs in Northern Ireland are good jobs, but there is a really narrow understanding of what a good job involves. In the Committee, we have done a lot of belly-button-gazing about what a good job is. Do you have any plans to consider what proportion of jobs could come within a wider definition of a good job?

Mr Jack: The definition that the Minister has endorsed is the Carnegie framework definition, which has seven elements, four of which the consultation covered. The seven dimensions of a good job go beyond what is specifically covered by the employment law framework. There is clear agreement on the Carnegie framework, and it has a broader currency in other jurisdictions that are looking at what a good job is. NISRA, certainly, has developed its analysis of work quality indicators in a way that is aligned with the Carnegie framework, so we should have a series of data over time that allows that kind of comparison of what proportion of the population is in good jobs to be monitored as we move forward.

Ms McLaughlin: When should we expect that data? That will be quite important for the Bill.

Mr Jack: We will probably need to ask NISRA for that, but I know that it publishes some of that data on work quality indicators in an annual update.

Ms McLaughlin: OK. Again, that NISRA data indicates that there is a real gender differential in the proportion of women in good jobs. We discussed all of that in the debate on gender-responsive budgeting in the Assembly yesterday. Does the Department have any space that will explicitly include a focus on gender in relation to good jobs?

Mr Jack: The issue of gender equality specifically, and the legislation on that, is the responsibility of the Department for Communities. In a previous mandate, provisions were added to the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 that dealt with gender pay gap reporting. My understanding is that the Department for Communities is looking to refine that and bring gender pay gap reporting into operation. There has been some correspondence at ministerial level on that issue and on what proposals can be brought forward on that. We can expect gender pay gap reporting to be introduced and come into operation here.

There are a whole range of factors that affect the gender pay gap, and some of the issues in our consultation exercise, particularly on the family-related types of leave, should help to close the gender pay gap. It might be difficult to make absolute pronouncements about how much contribution those have made, but the right to request flexible working from day 1 and make it a more frequent right certainly ought to increase the ability of women — and men — to work in a way that is flexible and meets their families' requirements. Carers' leave is also something that should have a positive impact on gender participation in the workforce. Certainly, we see the Bill contributing to that.

Ms McLaughlin: It is fundamental. I know that it is one of the responsibilities of the Department for Communities, but it is fundamental to the "good jobs" Bill as well. There should be a move to ensure that the Bill is gender-responsive. I have other things to ask, but there are so many questions and it is such a big Bill.

Mr McGuigan: It will come as no surprise that I welcome the Bill and its policy intention to improve and protect the rights of workers, particularly on the issues that have been outlined on things such as zero-hour contracts, "fire and rehire" practices and collective bargaining. From that point of view, I see the Bill having lots of good potential. From an economy point of view, we are well aware of some of the key problems around productivity and getting the economically inactive back into work. I see potential in the Bill for helping to solve some of those problems.

In the document, the Department says that it is a preliminary analysis and not a deep dive. I am sure that we are going to have plenty of engagement as we go forward. There was a bit of to and fro between you and the Chair about the consultation. Further to some of those questions, do you have any analysis at this stage of what particular sectors have responded? I know that you talked about the trade unions and business organisations, but is there any analysis of particular sectors that responded to the consultation or sectors that have not?

Mr Jack: We have an analysis of the sectors, or at least the types of respondee. We had 66 employer respondents, 25 representing an industry employer association, 19 representing a trade union, 23 representing a charitable or voluntary organisation, 45 individuals and 13 other responses. I am not quite sure what those are.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Public-sector bodies?

Mr Jack: Could be, partly. Then there is one who is not known. We have the breakdown at that level. I am sure that we could break it down in more detail, if there were particular aspects that you were interested in.

Mr McGuigan: I am thinking in particular of the hospitality and tourism sector, the manufacturing sector, or, if you can, education. If there was some analysis a bit deeper than that, it might be useful. Secondly, the trade unions are obviously key in this, and there was engagement with the trade unions, and there have been responses from them. Beyond that, maybe even into the private sector, what type of engagement, if any, was there with employees? Did you try to gain the views of employees further within the private sector who maybe currently do not have trade union representation?

Mr Jack: Taking the first aspect, you mentioned hospitality and manufacturing specifically. We met both Hospitality Ulster and Manufacturing NI as part of the preliminary engagement before we ran the consultation exercise, and both those organisations responded. Consultation with individual employees is quite tricky. Most of our engagement has been with the union sector, but we met some people who were zero-hours contract workers in one particular organisation. The Minister has also made clear that, while the formal consultation has finished, consultation and engagement is an ongoing process. We are due to meet some people who work on some of the app-based work platforms in the gig economy. We will want to hear directly from them about their experiences. So we are seeking to get views from individuals. Obviously, we have some individual responses that are from employees. We could probably break that down in terms of whether the individuals are responding in their capacity as an employee or some other capacity. Some of those will be from individuals who are carers, for example, specifically.

Mr McGuigan: This is my last question. It is going to be a big piece of legislation. You said that the Minister intends to bring it before the Assembly at the beginning of 2016. How long do you think that process, from introduction to completion, will last? Is there plenty of time within the mandate to get it through?

Mr Jack: We were just discussing this before we came in. There is one member of the Committee who is still here from the last mandate and went through the process of taking through the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill. Our expectation is that that process would take probably a good part of the 2026 calendar year by the time we have had all the different stages, including the Committee Stage. To some extent, we are in the Committee's hands, because the Committee has discretion as to how long that Committee Stage takes. We have made certain assumptions about that in our own working timetable.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What assumptions have you made about how long the Committee Stage will take?

Mr Jack: Dearbhla, you have a —.

Ms Redmond: There is a statutory minimum —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, I know.

Ms Redmond: — and then there is the ability to extend that. For a Bill of this size, our working assumption is that perhaps the Committee might want to take a little longer to look at it than the minimum time frame.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What is the working assumption that you have put together?

Mr Jack: Our working assumption is that the Committee will want to take three months. If that is the case, we should be on track to get the Bill through in the current mandate. We have assumed that the Committee will want to scrutinise the Bill in detail.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): OK. Philip, do you have anything else?

Mr McGuigan: I am not sure whether I said "2016" or "2026" with regard to bringing in the legislation. If I said "2016", that was obviously wishful thinking. That is me, Chair.

Mr Jack: It is 2026.

Mr Buckley: You are going backwards, Philip.

Mr Middleton: Thanks, Colin, for that update. Obviously, it is a significant piece of work. We have heard about and read your piece on the consultation. I share the Chair's view about what I would say is a disappointing response to the consultation, given the wide-ranging impact that the Bill would have across Northern Ireland. How confident are you, as a Department, that the 13-week consultation over the summer does justice to some of the significant proposals?

Mr Jack: The normal period for a consultation process is eight weeks. The Minister extended that to 13 weeks. Consultation exercises often take place over the summer. The position that we were in was that devolution had been restored in February, and we were asked to work intensively on getting a consultation document out. Look at our counterparts in Britain, where the new Government had a deadline for introducing a Bill within the first 90 days. When new Administrations come into operation, they want to make changes quickly and engage with people in doing that. We have had a lot of good engagement with business organisations and unions. As I said, we felt that the response was fairly healthy. Certainly, the responses that we have received are of a high quality.

Mr Middleton: Yes. It is not to demean those who have responded, because, thankfully, there are responses. Obviously, the response from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce is one of them. Certainly, some of those responses suggest that there a risk that this "good jobs" Bill could actually result in fewer jobs. We think of the zero-hours contract issue. We hear clearly in some of the responses — for example, from Mount Charles, Titanic Belfast and the hospitality and tourism sector — that there are deep concerns about what that will mean and that, effectively, it will mean fewer jobs because they will not be able to employ people on that basis. What are your considerations on that? Also, we do not have enough data on the wider impact across Northern Ireland. Does the Department hold data on what it would mean for wider society in Northern Ireland if a ban on zero-hours contracts were to be introduced?

Mr Jack: The Minister was clear in his initial statement and throughout the document that his plan was to replace zero-hours contracts with contracts that better balance the needs of businesses and employees. Certainly, we have received a lot of responses from business organisations about people who are on flexible working arrangements, work on an on-call basis, and so on. The Minister will very much want to listen to the views that are in the responses when formulating his proposals on what a replacement for zero-hours contracts looks like. That proposition to replace them was well supported by both employer and employee organisations.

Mr Middleton: I have seen a piece from the FSB in the media today about concerns that many employers may not actually be aware of this ongoing piece of work. It goes back to the point about data. There will be employers out there who are unaware that such a significant proposal is being brought forward. What is the Department doing to get that data and to make those businesses aware of what could potentially be coming down the line?

Mr Jack: Well, we put quite a lot of effort into publicising the consultation. There was media coverage and a lot of social media activity. We engaged a lot with the business organisations, and a number of them organised events for their members at which the consultation was discussed. There has been a lot of engagement through which individual employers should have been made aware, and it is clear that they were aware, because they attended. The nature of small businesses is that they are harder to reach with those kinds of messages. The process of taking the Bill through will take another 18 months or more, so there will be plenty of further opportunities to raise awareness in the small business sector.

Mr Middleton: Those small businesses are effectively the backbone of the economy. We do not want to create a situation in which the "good jobs" Bill turns out to be a burden and to create further bureaucracy for many businesses that are struggling.

A lot of areas have been covered, but I have a final point. Interrogating what this could mean is going to be a huge piece of work for the Committee. There are a lot of good things there, but there are also things of concern. You indicated that it is still the Minister's intention to bring the Bill to the House in January 2026. Obviously, there will be the work of the Committee in that period. Given that there are a lot of things in there and it was just a call for evidence — there were not many specific proposals from the Department on what the Minister would like to see — is there an opportunity for further consultation with the sectors involved to talk about specifics? Obviously, there is the guidance piece, and hopefully we will get an answer on the guidance that could come forward. When it comes to the legislation, is there potential that those could be separated for further consultation?

Mr Jack: There will certainly be ongoing engagement with the business organisations, the unions and the special interest organisations that are interested in the family leave issues. If there is anything new that we have not consulted on, it is possible that we may need to have further formal consultation exercises, but we have no specific further consultations planned at the moment.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, panel, for coming to us today. I represent Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and, in a previous life, I represented Fermanagh and Omagh District Council. In that area, 94% of businesses are microbusinesses with a turnover of less than £50,000. A lot of those businesses have no affiliation with a trade organisation or body, so I am concerned that your consultation process has not reached them and that their voices are not being heard. It is imperative that we have a "good jobs" Bill that increases output, increases productivity, protects jobs and gives people the right working environment. For small family businesses or embryonic businesses, how will you avoid making compliance onerous, as Sinéad said? That is my first question.

My second is this: did you engage with local economic partnerships through the consultation process? The local councils are most in touch with what is happening economically in their district, so that engagement is important. I share other members' view that the consultation seemed to go out at a time when, perhaps, people's attention was on other things. There is a lot in the Bill that has to be implemented. I am concerned about the burden on those small businesses — the 94% with a turnover of under £50,000 — and how the Bill will affect them.

Mr Jack: I might bring in Kellie specifically on the issues around voice and representation. There are differences between what small businesses and larger businesses are required to do. We engaged with a number of umbrella organisations, such as Retail NI, Hospitality Ulster and Manufacturing NI, that have many small businesses in their membership. They brought the views of their members, some of which were quite small businesses, to us. However, we have not engaged specifically with the local enterprise partnerships that you mentioned.

Kellie, do you want to add a bit about the union issue?

Ms Kellie Sprott (Department for the Economy): You raise a very good point. We are very cognisant of the number of small and microbusinesses in the economy, and the Minister is cognisant of that, too. When we look at this in the whole, we will take into account the impact that it might have on the businesses that you are talking about.

With regard to the voice and recognition part, that is something that we have been very cognisant of, and there are certain exemptions in legislation, as it stands at the moment, for microbusinesses. We are certainly considering whether those exemptions should remain or not. It is a very live issue for us, and that is with regard to certain engagement with your employees, a requirement for collective bargaining and all those kinds of issues. That is at the forefront of our mind.

For the very small businesses that you are talking about, there are issues regarding the work-life balance part of the consultation. When there is a statutory payment brought in for a right to family-related leave, those businesses would receive 103% back from HMRC, so it would not be at a cost to them. If it is a statutory payment, they would receive that back.

Ms D Armstrong: I understand that it is not at a financial cost to them, but it is about replacing the person who is absent. It is about the workflow and the work process.

I have another question. I represent an agricultural area. Did you consult the Ulster Farmers' Union about the impact on the farming community?

Mr Jack: We did not specifically engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union. I am not sure whether it responded. Did it?

Ms Redmond: I cannot remember. Sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Who represented the agriculture sector on the engagement forum?

Mr Jack: The organisations on the engagement forum are the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and Manufacturing NI. One of the issues is that the agriculture sector has a separate set of arrangements through the Agricultural Wages Board, and the Ulster Farmers' Union and Unite are involved in that. I suppose that issues around agricultural workers' terms and conditions are slightly separate from the ones in the rest of the economy. The general business organisations would, I suppose, represent the agri-food sector on the engagement forum.

Ms D Armstrong: Going back to Manufacturing NI and those larger organisations, I know from engagement with the smaller businesses in the area that I represent that they are not part of those bodies, so there is an important piece there about reaching those microbusinesses. Thank you very much.

Mr Jack: We have other strands of work that we are doing with the Federation of Small Businesses. There is something called the small and medium business impact test, and we have one in the consultation document that we did on good jobs. We are doing work to promote awareness and adoption of that and to ensure that Departments follow that when they make policy proposals. We also have work on whether small businesses are being paid promptly by larger companies that they supply and so on. We are working with the Small Business Commissioner and the Federation of Small Businesses to raise awareness of that issue and to make sure that performance improves on that across the economy.

Mr Delargy: Thank you to the panel for the answers so far. I have found the questions really interesting. Like Philip, I am very much in favour of the Bill and see huge benefits in it. It is really important for employers, but it also augments the rights of employees. I note that it is particularly important in terms of getting access to employment and sustaining that employment. One element that has been mentioned, and it was the subject of a private Member's Bill that was introduced previously by my colleague Martina Anderson, is around improving the rights of carers in the workplace. That is really important, and I am really happy to see that moving forward at pace.

You have touched on other jurisdictions, but you primarily touched on the UK. In Derry and many border constituencies, we have a huge number of cross-border workers, and I am conscious that, when we look at other jurisdictions, we often gravitate towards Westminster automatically. I am keen to understand what engagement you have had with the South and other jurisdictions on best practice and on aligning, particularly for border constituencies, workers' rights.

Mr Jack: We do engage very regularly with our counterparts in Britain and in the South. We have met our counterpart team in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in Dublin. That opened up a range of ongoing contact on all the issues. You will see in the document that we have tried, in most cases, to set out the position in Britain, the South and anywhere else that is relevant to the issue that we are looking at, and the Minister will want to take account of those issues as he makes decisions.

Mr Delargy: Thanks for that. Specifically, have you had engagement on areas that are not aligned with the South but have the potential to be aligned?

Mr Jack: The model that they have for banded-hours contracts to replace zero-hours contracts is something that we have looked at in detail. We outlined that in the consultation document, and, to some extent, that will provide us with a benchmark as we move forward. We have engaged on other issues, for example, carers' leave. There is a particular way in which they organise that, and we discussed that with them. Also, we will be coming to the Committee again in two or three weeks' time on domestic abuse safe leave. Safe leave has been introduced in the South. We were in a position to hear a bit about how it has been working in practice there, although I think that our legislation went through the Assembly before the legislation in the South. Certainly, we have active engagement and dialogue with them.

I do not know whether any of my colleagues want to add anything to that.

Ms Redmond: It is part of our routine horizon scanning in our policy engagement to reach out to our counterparts in the South and at Westminster.

Mr Delargy: That is great. Specifically, on the two elements that you have asked them about, can you provide a wee bit more detail on what those might look like in practice, just to ensure that there is an all-Ireland approach to the work?

Ms Nicholl: Thank you very much. We will be seeing a lot of you over the next year — sorry, Pádraig.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Sorry, Pádraig. Apologies.

Mr Delargy: It was just to get a response to that.

Mr Jack: You want an answer on the specific issues of banded hours and safe leave.

Mr Delargy: Specifically, what are you doing with an all-Ireland approach to ensure that, going forward, we can work collectively on those, and what changes do you see to our legislation to line up with them?

Ms Redmond: It will be for the Minister to make decisions about what he determines as a consequence of the consultation. That is the next stage in the process. We continue to liaise with our counterparts on developments, how things are going, and what specific proposals they are going to introduce.

Mr Jack: The Minister engages regularly, and we engage regularly, with, for example, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, which operates in both jurisdictions. We have a dialogue with it as well. The Ministers in the South make their own decisions on employment law issues. Sometimes, our Minister will agree with those and sometimes he may not. It is making sure, though, that there are arrangements in place that do not act as an impediment to people who may be in the situation that you mentioned, which is living in one jurisdiction and working in the other. A lot of work is going on elsewhere to address that, and we will certainly link in with that.

Mr Delargy: I appreciate that, but I still need clarity around what specific proposals you have identified in those two areas that you are going to bring forward to the Minister for consideration.

Ms Redmond: Do you mean in respect of zero-hours contracts?

Mr Delargy: What specific elements of banded hours and safe leave, which you have mentioned, are you going to bring forward for consideration?

Ms Redmond: For zero-hours contracts, the consultation invited views on seven broad options, one of which was banded hours. Obviously, we will take those options, and we will look at the consultation responses. That will form part of the Minister's decision-making. It is one of the options on the table.

Mr Jack: We have had further engagement with an academic in the South, for example, who is an expert on how the banded-hours arrangement has worked in practice. We have heard some views from her on that, so we will be taking those into account for advice. I am sure that the Minister will want to take that into account as he takes decisions.

Ms Nicholl: It is a massive Bill. Some colleagues have mentioned this already, but I want to reiterate that my party responded to the consultation. It was a really difficult consultation to respond to because there were not clear proposals in it. I also wrote to the Minister about extending the consultation, having engaged with the business sector and trade unions about the short time for the consultation. I think that the short time would have been justifiable if there were concrete proposals in it. In response to Gary's point about further consultation, you said that parts of this are a call for evidence, not necessarily a consultation, and a consultation would be merited where there were things that were new. In fact, a lot of this will be new because you have not set out what the Department's position is. For me, there is a lot that is interesting, and I think that we are going to have great discussions about it. I am not entirely sure what is going to be in this Bill, and I think that that is problematic. I am worried about consultation in relation to it.

My first question is on the fact that there were four areas where there was no commentary. Off the back of Pádraig's question on zero-hours contracts, you are looking at seven different areas, and it will be based on the consultation. When are we going to see the detail of what the Minister is proposing so that we can actually consult properly on it?

Mr Jack: The Minister is proposing to bring forward a response document following the consultation, which will set out a summary of the responses. He will also set out his decisions on the way forward.

Ms Nicholl: When though?

Mr Jack: That should be in the springtime. That should not be too far away now.

Ms Nicholl: It is interesting to know what people have said in response, and that is something that we will be looking at. What we really want to know is what the Minister is planning to do.

Mr Jack: He will take his policy decisions, then the Office of the Legislative Counsel will draft the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Subject to Executive approval.

Mr Jack: Subject to Executive approval. That is absolutely important. Subject to the Executive agreeing the Bill, it will be introduced to the Assembly, and the Committee, I expect, will probably want to hear evidence from stakeholders at that stage on the different issues. That certainly reflects the model of Bills that we have been involved in the past.

Ms Nicholl: There was mention of the Committee Stage. I hope that it will not be as long as that for DOJ's Bill. Its current legislation is finishing at Easter next year.

On the subject of voice and representation, the voice of the worker is so important, and my party really welcomes any move towards transparency, accountability and protection for whistle-blowers in particular. The lack of detail there was something that we had an issue with, as was implementation costs. I know from speaking to the business sector that there are real questions about how that is going to look. How much detail can you go into about what the Minister is likely to decide on those things?

Mr Jack: Our role today is to give information about what we received back from the consultation, and, I suppose, we would not want to steal the Minister's thunder.

Ms Nicholl: OK. A lot of my questions were along that line, so I will not go into any of those.

In Australia, the right to disconnect applies only to small business employees. In the South, I think that they have a code of practice. It is an interesting concept to consider how that will work. What do you envisage that looking like?

Ms Sprott: At the moment, we do not know what the Minister's decision will be, but it is an area where there is uniformity between GB, the ROI and ourselves when it comes to ideas for an approach. You are right that they have a code of practice in the ROI, three elements of which have to be met. GB is consulting on that at the moment, as we are, with a view — this comes from speaking to my GB colleagues — to following the ROI line. Our analysis has come back to show that there is broad support for the view that, given the changes in workplaces resulting from technological advances and COVID, there is a need for some form of clarity in law in order to say what should and should not be done on the right to disconnect. We will take all that on board, and the Minister will make a decision. That is an area where there could be consistency.

Ms Nicholl: OK. Sinéad mentioned alignment with GB. The legislation coming from Westminster is interesting, and it is good that you are doing horizon scanning. In the past, we have been in the lead on employment law, and I very much hope that that will continue. It will be useful for the Committee to get regular updates from you as you do that horizon scanning, so that we know what changes are happening.

This is the final point that I want to make : I welcome the fact that you mentioned paid carers' leave several times in your answers and in the engagement. I never miss an opportunity to talk about paid carers' leave. The Minister responded to a question for written answer that I submitted, saying that Ulster University is doing independent research on that. Will that include costings and a proper cost-benefit analysis? What will the research contain?

Mr Gareth Dillon (Department for the Economy): We have a meeting with Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre (UUEPC) and Carers NI this afternoon. That is an ongoing process. We anticipate that that research will come back to us on this side of Easter. That is the timescale that we are looking at. It will be a broad review of the available literature. The methodology used in the consultation is similar to the methodology used by Carers NI and WPI Economics, and we are hopeful that there will be an element of cost-benefit analysis in it. It will be an ongoing, iterative process. We hope to know more about where we are going, timescales and what will be included in that research following our discussions at the meeting this afternoon.

Ms Nicholl: OK.

Mr Jack: It is important for the Committee to understand that, for any of the paid leave entitlements that are put in place in Britain, we get a Barnett consequential. If Northern Ireland does the same thing, it can be done at no additional cost, but, if we do something that goes beyond what is available in Britain, there is an expectation that the Executive will pay for it.

The cost is much clearer for some forms of leave than it is for others. For example, we receive information from HMRC every year about the cost of paternity leave in Northern Ireland. The current model for that, which is two weeks' entitlement, costs somewhere in the region of £2·5 million to £3 million a year. Should the Minister, the Executive and the Assembly decide that they want to increase that, which is an option set out in the consultation document, we could project, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what that would cost the Executive to do that. That is in the context of a pretty constrained Budget, so the Executive could have a lot of difficult decisions to take.

You mentioned costings for carers' leave. It is fair to say that there has been a lot variance in the estimates for what that might cost.

Ms Nicholl: I think that your response to my question was based on 100% uptake, but Carers NI's research says that it is a lot less than that, with most people taking only three days. The research is welcome, but you have to have the cost, but you have to have the analysis of the benefit as well.

Thank you very much for the presentation and the report. This is not a criticism of you, but it is not very satisfying that we do not yet know what is going to be in the Bill and what we are going to be scrutinising. When you come back, it will be great to have a decision from the Minister as to how we are going to progress.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the broader reach of what we are trying to do in order to protect workers. A lot of stuff has been covered, but there are two areas that I want to look at, the first of which is the public sector. A lot of our economy comprises employers in small businesses, but much of it comprises people who are employed in the public sector. How are they being consulted?

Mr Jack: They are aware of this. The Minister will have written to all of his Executive colleagues, but we have been in contact with people in the various Departments with large public-sector workforces in order to alert them to the fact that the consultation was happening, and we have met some of them. They take account of proposals that are in documents like this when planning for the future. It is fair to say that, although the legislation sets out the legal minimum for a lot of employment rights, most public-sector organisations already go well beyond that in their staff terms and conditions. A lot of the drive in employment legislation is to bring workers and employees whose employment conditions are, perhaps, less good closer to the conditions that better employers provide. Public-sector employees are often at the higher end in terms of the employment rights that are offered. The cost to the public sector should not be that great where they already comply with any requirements that are being introduced.

Mr Honeyford: If you have an arm's-length body that is, effectively, funded from the Government here, are you content and happy that it has been consulted and its views have been heard in the consultation?

Mr Jack: Did we get many responses from arm's-length bodies? We certainly got responses from the Equality Commission and some of the key bodies with policy interests in all of this. Certainly, they would have been informed of the consultation and would have had the opportunity to respond.

Ms Redmond: They would have been on the consultation distribution list, so they would have had the opportunity.

Mr Honeyford: OK. I want to look at an area of the Bill which is of interest to me, which is to do with self-employed status. We need to address the issue of the bogus self-employed. I agree broadly in principle with what the Bill is trying to achieve, which is to prevent exploitation of people. When the consultation went out, there was absolutely no offering of what was going to happen. You are not consulting on anything: you are just throwing an idea out in the wind and looking for responses to nothing. How is that a consultation?

Mr Jack: Well, the document set out a range of options. Many of the responses that have come back said, "This is the option that we think you should follow".

Mr Honeyford: OK.

Ms Redmond: On the status one in particular, there was a recognition that that is particularly complicated. That is a core employment right: your status dictates the rights and responsibilities that the employer and the worker have. Because it is so complex and because there is that interaction with the tax system, that particular section of the consultation was really aimed at trying to better understand what the issues are. That was about taking account of that and to better understand what is going on.

Mr Honeyford: That is my point. It is not a consultation: it is throwing something out into the wind to try to find out what is happening. You are using that as a consultation rather than bringing something forward. I do not get how that —.

Mr Jack: That is one of the trickiest of all the issues in the consultation because there is an interaction between employment rights and the tax system.

Mr Honeyford: What consultation has happened with HMRC?

Ms Redmond: We liaise regularly with our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. That is the first point of contact for us.

Mr Honeyford: Can our Committee have that consultation back from what has happened? Employment law sits here, and that is fine, but tax law sits in London and in the UK Parliament. If we alter one, it affects the other. If you are going to consult on one, then there needs to be a consultation with the other. We, as a Committee, need to see what that response was. We cannot scrutinise this without knowing what the consequences are on the other side.

Mr Jack: Part of our work on this issue is liaison — Dearbhla has referred to it — with the Department for Business and Trade. The UK Government have mentioned that they intend to look at this issue as part of their consultation on their Make Work Pay initiative, beyond the Employment Rights Bill that is currently in Westminster. They have set out that looking at this issue in relation to Britain will take a bit of time. We still have to finalise our analysis of the responses on this and discuss it further with the Minister. This is really one of the ones where it is probably most complex.

Mr Honeyford: It is, and it affects, probably, a massive part of our small and microbusinesses. I should say that I agree with the part — we have had the Uber cases before; we have had the —. Therefore, I agree with the principle of what we are trying to achieve. However, we could end up with the unintended consequence of creating another sector where people end up with less rather than more, and less protection rather than more. Businesses that are subcontracting now end up worse off. In the real world, this could end up being detrimental to our economy. My fear is that this is not a consultation on this area. How can we bring forward a Bill if there has been no consultation specifically on this piece?

Mr Jack: I mentioned that we have a plan to meet with some platform workers, for example, who got in touch with the Department. That is one of the trickiest aspects as well: hearing the experiences of individuals who are working in these types of working arrangement. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister has made clear that, although the formal consultation has finished, the need to consult has not. That will be done on an ongoing basis, in terms of our ability to —

Mr Honeyford: That is really important. There will be further consultation as proposals come forward.

Mr Jack: Certainly, we will want to make sure that any proposals that come forward are tested with all of the people who will need to work with them.

Mr Honeyford: When a specific decision is made as to what area this is going to be, will that be consulted with the FSB, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and all the others, the trade unions and everybody?

Mr Jack: In all this, we are in an ongoing dialogue with all those organisations.

Mr Honeyford: I do not want dialogue: I am asking whether there will be a —

Mr Jack: It will be specific. Dialogue involves discussion of specific issues.

Mr Honeyford: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Yes, but we could say that this is consultation as we are discussing —. Having ongoing engagement is something that I may say to someone, "Yes, I will listen to what you have to say, but that does not particularly mean that I am going to take what you have to say on board." The point is this: will there be a formal consultation by the Department on its proposals that have not been covered in the document that was published during the summer? That is what David is asking.

It is either yes or no: or you cannot answer that, and it is for ministerial —

Ms Sprott: It is for the Minister to decide.

Mr Jack: It is for the Minister to decide. At this stage, it does not —

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): You cannot give any guarantee to the Committee. Fair enough.

Anything else?

Mr Honeyford: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): No problem. Jonathan?

Mr Buckley: Thank you very much, Colin and others, for your presentation. As has been mentioned by all Committee members, it is a huge area. That in itself gives me cause for concern. As Kate has already outlined, we are still not really clear on what some of the details will be. The buzzwords for me in all this are "potential unintended consequences" in certain aspects of law. Seventeen areas is a massive amount. We have already covered some of the consultation and that theme. I am

not just with this Committee but others, as to how we go about consultations and whether it is a true and accurate reflection of the wider picture.

Context is also important: by and large, Northern Ireland does not have poor employment rights compared with other places around the world, particularly economies that are larger than ours. Our citizens enjoy good employment rights. We have some significant larger employers and, significantly in our economy, those from a smaller business perspective that go above and beyond to help their employees and are flexible where they can be to ensure that their business delivers for them.

There are 17 areas. Colin, will we see individual impact assessments for every particular area, given the scale of this and the potential for unintended consequences?

Mr Jack: We have carried out quite a range of impact assessments on the various aspects of the document already. We will assess the need for further impact assessments depending on whether more specific proposals come forward and whether we need to refine them.

Gareth, do you want to add anything about your side?

Mr Dillon: There were specific impact assessments on theme D, which may be reflective of more of a catch-up agenda with developments that happened in Britain over the past number of years while we were without an Executive. We were consulting on firmer proposals to go through the process. Things such as regulatory impact assessments and the section 75 screenings have all taken place. Once the policy proposals have been developed and agreed with the Minister, they will be reviewed and may, if there is significant difference between what was proposed in the consultation and what is ultimately proposed by the Minister, be updated as required.

Mr Buckley: So, there is the potential for us to get individual impact assessments for every individual area if those are needed.

Mr Dillon: I am speaking to theme D. Those are available and have been published.

Mr Buckley: What about the other themes?

Ms Redmond: There are other impact assessments available. I think that we published about 19 impact assessments that looked at equality issues and regulatory and cost impacts. We will continue to look at doing those for other areas as policy proposals become more developed, and those will be published and shared with the Committee.

Mr Buckley: How concerned were you about the individual responses of some of our sectors? FSB, for example, will be before the Committee later. The Northern Ireland economy is largely dominated by smaller enterprises. They have particular concerns about so many aspects of this. With our economy in the state of flux that it is in, there has already been huge change for many businesses to grapple with, and there is now potential for the Government to add additional bureaucratic practices to those businesses, making them more uncompetitive. Is that a cause of concern for officials?

Mr Jack: I go back to the point that many employers already go well beyond what is in the statutory employment law framework. It is about setting minimum standards. Not all small businesses are the same, but some of the feedback that we get suggests that many offer generous terms and conditions to their employees.

You mentioned international comparisons of the framework of employment rights. The Resolution Foundation carried out some analysis — it published it in the early autumn — in which it looked at GB in comparison with other jurisdictions in Europe and around the world. It showed that GB was towards the lower end in the protection of employment rights and that most European countries had a higher level of employment rights. The US was the area that clearly had a lower level of employment rights than the UK. The main issue that influenced where GB was on that matrix was the length of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, which, in GB, is two years, whereas, in Northern Ireland, it is one year. By virtue of that one difference in employment legislation in GB and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is much closer than GB to the middle of the table when it comes to employment law and employment rights.

Mr Buckley: It is important that you set that in context. Those are the findings of the Resolution Foundation. Many people now look at Europe and its practices and see that they are much more bureaucratic than those of the successful economies around the world that generate employment and good jobs and therefore better living standards.

David made another interesting point about the large number of people working in the public sector. Could the fact that it is a consultation on Executive legislation not have a chilling effect on how some in the public sector respond?

Mr Jack: Arm's-length bodies are free to respond to consultation exercises and often do so. Ministers have full opportunity to respond on issues that may impact on their Departments. The response probably reflects the fact that public-sector employers already tend to be doing a lot of the things that we propose to introduce to the economy more widely.

Mr Buckley: I think that it was Kate who said that it is harder to get an accurate picture of individual employees. That goes to the heart of my point: there will be in the public sector individual employees who may feel a chilling effect and not say what they truly feel on the issue for fear of retribution. I am not saying that that will happen, but there is always that self-conscious view.

Mr Jack: That is a reasonable point.

Mr Buckley: OK. My last point is a general comment. We have a long road to go on this. There will have to be considerable engagement with the Committee, given the vast areas that the Bill covers. My fear is the unintended consequence that a "good jobs" employment rights Bill could be a "fewer jobs" and less employment Bill. We need to guard against that. There will be aspects of the Bill that we all agree on, but other aspects that are cause for greater concern will require greater scrutiny.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you, Jonathan, and I thank all colleagues. I have a final question about catching up with GB, which you mentioned, Gareth. GB put in a backstop of two years for historical holiday pay claims. I did not see that in the proposals from the Minister. Do you expect the Minister to take that forward in the Bill?

Mr Dillon: Kellie, do you want to come in on that?

Ms Sprott: Yes. You are right. It was not in the consultation, and we did not consult on it, but we are aware of it because it has been brought up with us and the Minister through our ongoing engagement, and it is also in some of the consultation responses. It will form part of the whole package when we discuss with the Minister what he will do in his response.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Perfect. This is actually my final question; sorry. In the consultation document, the Department proposed lowering the period for notification of strike action from seven days to five days. What is the Department's rationale for that? It goes to a point that others raised about the public sector. Think of our hospitals or of Translink, for example. Would a five-day notice period give enough time for our hospitals, Translink or other key public-sector organisations to put cover in place to ensure that the public across Northern Ireland have the services that they need?

Mr Jack: The proposal was included in the document in response to the Minister's initial steer in his February statement that he wanted to strengthen the role of trade unions. The measure to reduce the notice period from seven days to five days was in a private Member's Bill in the previous mandate, so it was included in the consultation document to test opinion, and we got opinion back.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): What has that opinion been?

Mr Jack: It has largely been along the lines that you have just set out. The Minister will consider that when he takes decisions.

The Chairperson (Mr Brett): Thank you very much, colleagues. You have been here longer than we might have anticipated. I really appreciate that. Obviously, from my perspective and, I assume, that of the Committee, it is useful to have an interim update. There is a piece in our pack saying that the Department is keen to get our views at this stage. Given that we have not been given a full picture at this stage, I would not feel comfortable trying to get the Committee to give a view on it. There is a long road still to travel. I wish you all the best with the work. We look forward to working with you on that. Thank you very much.