Employment Bill: Second Stage

The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):

I beg to move

Before explaining the substantive provisions of the Bill, I shall set those provisions in context. Improved quality of life is a key issue for all. We each have competing demands on our time, and we have to juggle priorities in our social, domestic and professional lives. The traditionally held view of success is that it can only be achieved by adopting a working culture of long hours and hard graft. However, the conviction is gradually spreading that that is not necessarily the case.

Instead, it is increasingly being recognised that greater productivity is achieved by employers and employees working together in effective partnership. This is about developing people's knowledge and skills and about innovation and finding better and smarter ways to work. Those are essential from the point of view of employers and employees - especially employees with young children.

A huge segment of the population is involved in rearing young children. In Northern Ireland, 17% of households have at least one child under the age of six. That equates to 120,000 people who are parents of a young child or of a child with a disability. Those parents have a key role to play in the economy, as their children will one day.

It should not be necessary for anyone to feel that they have to choose between being a good parent and being a good employee. The Employment Bill addresses the real-life problems of work and parenting. It introduces a series of measures designed to help employees balance their family and employment responsibilities while taking account of the need for businesses to compete in an increasingly competitive market. Specifically, the Bill provides for new rights to paid time off for fathers and adoptive parents, extends the amount of paid and unpaid leave available to new mothers, and gives a new right for parents of young children to request flexible working conditions. These measures mirror provisions in the Employment Bill currently before Parliament at Westminster and will ensure that our employers and employees have the same family-friendly employment rights as are enjoyed by their Great Britain counterparts.

Other related measures, such as revised paternity pay arrangements that correspond to social security provisions in the GB Employment Bill, are included in the social security Bill being brought forward by the Department for Social Development.

The Department for Employment and Learning carried out extensive public consultation on the proposals in the Bill, and they received widespread support. A summary of the responses received is on the Department's web site.

Social inclusion and equality of opportunity are at the heart of the Executive's Programme for Government. Advancing the social inclusion agenda is also a key priority for my Department, and I am pleased to say that an assessment of the equality impact of the proposals in the Employment Bill has confirmed that they will have a positive impact on promoting equality of opportunity. For example, they will enable single parents to participate more fully at work by recognising the particular difficulties that they face. I am sure Members will join me in welcoming this.

We need to avoid, where possible, imposing burdens on businesses. There will be some costs to employers, for instance, in setting up systems to administer the new arrangements and facilitate requests for flexible working, but there will also be advantages. Members will be aware of the difficulty for businesses of recruiting and retaining skilled staff. Research carried out by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reveals that the cost to an employer of filling a vacancy is, on average, £3,500. To lose a trained and skilled person because no effort was made to try to accommodate his parenting responsibilities does not make good business sense.

The Work-Life Balance campaign managed by the Department for Employment and Learning has demonstrated the benefits to business of enabling employees to achieve and maintain a better balance between work and other aspects of their lives. Employers are discovering for themselves the wide-ranging benefits from working with employees to find mutually agreeable solutions tailored to particular circumstances. Businesses that do that tend to attract talented people, and they have a more motivated workforce with reduced stress and sick leave and a lower staff turnover. These are the very real benefits as a consequence of addressing employees' needs as a whole, not just at the workplace.

I will take a few moments to comment on the core elements of the Bill. With regard to paternity leave and pay, the Bill provides for a new right to two weeks' paid paternity leave following the arrival of a new child. That will allow new fathers more time to care for the child and build a relationship with the child and offer support to the mother. The payment mechanism will be standardised with that of maternity pay, thus making for simplicity. In Northern Ireland, around 12,000 employed fathers will qualify each year for the new right. However, many employers already voluntarily provide paid paternity leave. The costs associated with paternity leave will be low for most employers, as the majority will be reimbursed. As with maternity and adoption pay, businesses qualifying for small employer's relief may recoup 100% of paternity leave pay, plus an additional 5% compensation for administration costs.

The Bill has the effect of simplifying the arrangements for maternity leave. That was a key priority for employers - particularly small employers - who responded to the public consultation. Most of the changes will be implemented by subordinate legislation. Ordinary maternity leave will be extended from 18 weeks to 26 weeks with the option of additional unpaid maternity leave of 26 weeks. Members will welcome anything that can be done to make the system easier for women and their employers to understand. Increasing the amount of leave available to new mothers will provide them with greater choice about when to return to work. Enabling mothers to take a longer time off work allows them to return when they are stronger, and it allows them more time to secure appropriate childcare arrangements. At the margin, that will enable some mothers to remain in employment, with recruitment and training savings for their employers. Detailed arrangements for the changes will be set out in the Regulations, but it is appropriate to mention them now in the context of the suite of measures planned to support working parents.

For the first time, under the provisions of the Bill, adoptive parents will have the right to paid time off work to care for their children. The introduction of paid adoption leave is a valuable step in recognising the important role that adoptive parents play. An adoptive parent will be able to take 26 weeks' paid leave and 26 weeks' unpaid leave, which is the same as women on maternity leave. As with maternity and paternity pay, small employers will recoup 100% of adoption pay plus additional compensation for administration costs.

With regard to flexible working, I have already commented on the need to ensure that the world of work allows people to combine home and employment responsibilities. Flexible working arrangements are viewed as a potential means of relieving pressures that arise from trying to combine family life and work. I feel strongly that flexible working has a role to play in enhancing working arrangements in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to note that the majority of responses to the consultation agreed with the proposal to legislate to give parents of young children the right to request flexible working conditions.

I have said that I appreciate that employers may have concerns about the potential financial burden that the measures may entail, and I accept that there will be some costs for employers in processing applications and accommodating requests. Businesses that have not yet explored the potential of flexible working hours will need time to familiarise themselves with the processes involved in considering requests from staff. Small businesses, in particular, will need assistance in implementing the proposals. I intend to ensure that my Department addresses their needs through the provision of comprehensive guidance.

It is difficult to estimate the extent of likely uptake of the right to seek flexible working hours. I fully expect costs to reduce significantly as the principles of a work/life balance become imbedded in our business culture. I anticipate that such practices will become commonplace as employers adapt to the needs of modern society. The availability of the new right may well contribute to the development of innovative ways of working, rather than always accepting traditional practices. For example, new technology provides rapidly increasing opportunities for different approaches. Change is an inevitable process in all our lives, and it should be welcomed, not feared.

A change of mindset should be encouraged in business, with employers being open to new ways of organising work and using new technology. Communication between employers, managers and employees is a key component to good employment relations. The new flexible working conditions do not oblige employers to introduce flexible working arrangements. I recognise that some small firms may find it impossible to accommodate such requests. However, employers are being asked to consider carefully the possibility of meeting the requests of staff. The employee has a duty to consider how the employer might accommodate the request for flexible working without any detrimental impact on the business. That is where dialogue, good employment relationships and open communication between employers, managers and employees are vital. Ultimately, the Bill must be viewed not only from the narrow perspective of its impact on employment rights, but in the wider social context of its potential to contribute to a better society in Northern Ireland.

I firmly believe that businesses must address work/life balance issues if they are to succeed in the modern economy. Providing support for working parents is not only about retaining their skills and experience in the workforce, it also creates more opportunity for mothers and fathers to spend more time with their children at key points in their lives. As a working mother, I know only too well the challenges that parents face as they try to reconcile their home responsibilities with the demands of their professional lives. The Employment Bill will provide parents with greater choice, in turn leading to a more flexible, motivated workforce. I am confident that by encouraging employers to put the work/life balance on the agenda, the provisions of the Bill will contribute to Northern Ireland's business moving forward in a modern, socially aware twenty-first century.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. There have been several Committee actions on issues addressed in the Bill. For example, in a letter to the Minister on 21 January, we stated that the Committee was broadly in agreement with proposals outlined in the Work and Parents Taskforce's 'About Time: Flexible Working' report, produced for the Department of Trade and Industry in London. The Committee also had no objections to Statutory Rule 135/2002, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which enabled parents of children born or placed for adoption up to five years before 15 December 1999 to take parental leave between now and 31 March 2005.

The Committee notes the broad principles of the Employment Bill, which have been outlined by the Minister: first, the proposals to attempt to retain working parents in the labour market as a key element in the strategy; secondly, the commitment to a work/life balance, and thirdly, the proposal to introduce rights for working parents in Northern Ireland that will match those provided by the forthcoming Employment Bill in Great Britain.

I may have to declare an interest, as some of the issues have become of personal interest to me in the five weeks since I became a parent for the first time. Several MLAs and many others in the labour market could, and hopefully will, benefit from some of the provisions.

Some considerations that are likely to be taken at Committee Stage include the position of low-paid workers, self-employed workers and other non-employees, the costs of the provisions to other workers, and issues of possible discrimination. The Committee is also likely to consider the cost of the Employment Bill to employers. It wants to ensure that compliance costs for the corporate sector are kept as low as possible. Ideally, flexibility arrangements between parents and their employers should be made by mutual agreement. The regulatory touch should be light, as in the GB legislation. The Committee has also noted a new report, issued in May 2002 by the Better Regulation Task Force in London, which calls for a review of the overall effects of the employment legislation on firms.

The Committee notes the parity with the Westminster Bill, which the Minister has rightly pointed out. The Department for Employment and Learning's Employment Bill is intended to come into effect simultaneously with the GB Employment Bill on 6 April 2003. The provisions of the Department for Employment and Learning's Bill correspond with clauses in the GB Bill with regard to paternity leave and adoption leave, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay, administration and enforcement of pay, rights during and after paternity leave, and flexible working. Other provisions in the GB Bill are not included in this Bill. The Committee noted - as the Minister also pointed out - that the Department for Social Development's social security Bill, which will be progressed simultaneously with the Employment Bill, includes provision for statutory maternity pay in relation to rate, period and entitlement, maternity allowance rate, work-focused interviews for partners, and use of information for or relating to employment training, all of which correspond to clauses in the GB Bill.

I welcome the opportunity of moving the Bill forward to Committee Stage.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the new father?

Thank you.

The issues outlined by the Minister are fundamental to building a society in which the rights of all workers are respected and protected by employment laws. Scenes of mothers who have not fully recovered from giving birth leaving carrycots at the homes of childminders in the early hours are inappropriate in a modern society. It is not fair to those mothers and it is not in the best interest of their children, whose umbilical cords have perhaps not yet healed. That can hardly represent the best circumstances for employers.

The SDLP hopes that the Bill will address the difficulties that arise when parents have to cope with work and parenting, and believes that it will address some of the fundamental issues of equality of opportunity and social inclusion. However, my only concern is that the new legislation might impose an unfair burden on small and medium-sized businesses, which do not have the same resources as large organisations. We must be reassured that there will be advantages for those employers. I am pleased that the Minister has outlined some of those in her introductory remarks.

I am particularly pleased that paternity leave has been built into the legislation. However, is two weeks' paid paternity leave sufficient for a father to contribute meaningfully to parenthood? What happens if the mother is suffering from post-natal depression and needs the father's support for longer?

However, maternity leave is the core issue. Although an extension from 18 weeks to 26 weeks is welcome - with an additional 26 weeks without pay included in the proposals - there is still inequality. That is particularly true of low-income and one-parent units. It is now better understood that differences between children with regard to academic achievement begin long before they reach school age. The Assembly must be mindful of that when provision is made for extended maternity leave, especially if children have special needs or are not born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

One of the greatest injustices done to working mothers in the last decade by some employers, especially some larger employers in the retail sector, has been to compel them to work antisocial hours when they should have been at home with their children. Does the Bill address that problem? Have the details been worked out? I ask again that small employers be fully supported when implementing the legislation so that they are not driven out, to the delight of the multinationals.

Employees should have every opportunity to update their training so that their work can be addressed in different ways. They should always be able to seek jobs that are more appropriate to their needs while they are parenting. I welcome the Minister's statement, especially the recognition afforded to adoptive parents.

Can the Minister assure us that the Bill will genuinely advance the cause of equality and social inclusion among people who require it most? They are responsible for bringing the next generation into the world. The Government have a responsibility to address those people's needs when they are most vulnerable and to protect them through legislation.

The Bill is going in the right direction. I support the motion.

Before I comment on the Second Stage of the Employment Bill, I must declare an interest in that my wife is an employer with a small retail business in the Craigavon area.

I recognise the positive aspects of the Bill, given the social contexts in which it is brought forward, especially modern domestic arrangements and the objective of establishing a more realistic work/life balance with the creation of family-friendly work practices. I also recognise the aspects that mark parity with legislation in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, having said that, other matters must be closely examined in the Committee Stage, because they could have an adverse effect on the performance and, indeed, the viability of some small businesses here. For instance, in March 2002 the final report on flexible working of the Work and Parents Taskforce said that

That highlights the increased costs. Indeed, the regulatory impact assessment shows that the total impact on employers here is estimated at between £1·6 million and £3·8 million in recurring annual costs. There are additional start-up costs of between £200,000 and £800,000, so there will be additional overheads for small businesses here that they can ill afford.

The Committee has already said that many small businesses and their proprietors are unpaid tax collectors already. They operate the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme for National Insurance and income tax. Recently, the tax credit scheme was imposed on employers, and the operation of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and the collection of student loan repayments are additional administrative burdens on the small employer. We must be careful that we do not impose the final straw that breaks the camel's back.

The Minister must listen carefully to what the small businesses say on the subject. They operate in a highly competitive world, and, in the global economy, they suffer from competition from multinationals. However, they are the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy, and we do not want to impose additional burdens that will impact adversely on their ability to trade.

Will the Minister elaborate on her statement, published in 'The Irish News' on Wednesday 29 May, that

The House should have her explanation of that statement on record.

Will the Minister tell us what she thinks about the inequality of a system where people who look after young children have the right to request flexible working, but those who care for elderly parents or relatives do not? That issue is of particular concern, given that we have an ageing population. Does the Minister have plans to include paid leave for those who must look after a terminally ill family member, for example?

Does the Minister have any plans to address the inequalities faced by the self-employed? Self-employed people have children and families too, yet there seems to be no provision in the Bill for them. How will they be gathered into the net?

These matters will be subjected to close scrutiny at the Committee Stage. Members of the Committee have asked questions during the discussions that led up to today's debate. I trust that, when the Bill reaches Committee Stage, the Minister will take cognisance of the valid case that will be presented.

Two further Members wish to speak in the debate, and the Minister will make a winding-up speech. As it will not be possible to conclude the debate in the time available, the Assembly will suspend for lunch and will resume business at 2.00 pm.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill, although its title is something of a misnomer. The Bill concerns the equality rights of working parents, and it might have been better named "The Parenting Employment Rights Bill". The Bill also concerns parity, and I have serious reservations about parity Bills. Contrary to what some Members may believe, we are not as British as Finchley, nor could social and economic circumstances here be compared to those in Finchley. Our situation is different in many ways. To begin with, I understand that our birth rate is the highest in Europe. Our social and economic structures are different.

That said, however, I welcome the broad principles of the Bill. It increases paid maternity leave for working mothers to 26 weeks, and provides two weeks' paid paternity leave. I should have liked paternity leave to be extended, especially where more than one child is involved. I also welcome parity for natural and adoptive parents.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, in respect of flexible working requests, we could start with the Assembly and all Departments. The legislation could, however, be more specific and a little stronger. It allows parents of children under six years old to request flexible working, but not to compel its provision. The Bill does not state that employers must comply. I ask the Minister to explain what options have been considered for employers. Giving parents the right to work reduced hours for as long as they wish following maternity leave, and the payment of maternity pay directly to mothers, must be a step in the right direction, but the legislation is weighted heavily in the employer's favour.

Neither does the Bill distinguish between small and large employers. It is not clear how small employers can recoup the administration costs involved. Will the additional burden on employers encourage discrimination against pregnant women in job opportunities? Those are serious questions, because the track record of discrimination against pregnant women has not been fully examined or properly recorded. The Bill is not clear about maternity and paternity leave for parents on training schemes or on fixed-term contracts.

Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as a first step in the recognition of parental rights and the importance of creating a balance between work and home. It will certainly ease the anxiety of working parents during pregnancy, at childbirth and afterwards. Go raibh maith agat.

I welcome the Bill with a sense of near déjà vu. So many of us who campaigned 25 years ago for such parental rights now face the Bill's introduction when our children have grown up. It is important because many of us never thought that such legislation would see the light of day. Obstacles were put in its path, especially by employers who felt that increasing regulation was a burden to their business. It should not be seen in that way. Mr Carrick said that those points were made in 1970 against the introduction of the Equal Pay Act and in 1975 against the Sex Discrimination Act. It was argued that equal work for equal value would cripple businesses to the extent that they would go out of business. Far from it; we have been able to recruit and retain more women in business.

I agree with Mary Nelis that the Bill's title is rather drab and is something that the Health Committee may consider revising. A problem with the devolved Assembly is that it gives innovative and original Bills generic titles that do not describe their intentions. Therefore, it would be interesting if Members could decide on a short title that truly explains that the Bill will legislate for parenting rights.

Members referred to statutory maternity pay and the introduction of statutory adoption pay and statutory paternity pay. It may not have been possible for those who financially costed the Bill to include the reduction of statutory sick pay, but Members must consider it. Given that the proposed rights, especially 26 weeks of paid maternity leave, were not available in the past, employees took that time off as sick leave. Often, to get a certificate from their doctor that would allow them to claim statutory sick pay, they had to find an illness with symptoms similar to their own. I look forward to the days when such practice is no longer necessary. That measure may create a saving, although others may see it as a cost.

I welcome that another saving has been recognised. There has been an annual reduction of £2·45 million in recruitment costs due to the predicted increase in the number of mothers who return to work after pregnancy. Therefore, although there are costs, there are benefits. As we push through the legislation, it will be important for us to monitor whether statutory sick payments are reduced as a consequence.

I have one concern. Will the Minister outline the practical reasons why those who choose intercountry adoptions are not entitled to the same rights as those who choose domestic adoptions? Members need to know those reasons in order to explain them to people who discover that they are not entitled to the same rights. The term "intercountry adoptions" is more applicable than the word "abroad". The Health Committee recently considered legislation on intercountry adoptions, and it found that those adoptive parents do not see their children as coming from abroad.

I hope that employers will comply with the legislation. The Equality Commission states that most complaints come from pregnant women who are not given their entitlement under current legislation. The Equality Commission says that it spends many hours dealing with such complaints, many of which result in tribunals. In order that the public and those who run small businesses are not overly alarmed by the introduction of such welcome legislation, will the Minister state when the comprehensive guidance will be available? It is important that it is available as soon as possible.

The Bill is welcome. I am pleased that the Assembly is finally recognising the role of all parents - natural and adoptive. For many years, those who could not have children and therefore adopted children, whom they reared as though they were their own, were not entitled to the same rights as natural parents. It is good that Northern Ireland has introduced real rights for adoptive parents.

Members have referred to a wide range of employment issues. The Bill's core principle is that it is important to realise that what is good for employees can also be good for employers. The best employers offer the best conditions for their workforces, and that is no coincidence.

Successful employers need valued, skilled and committed employees - as does the economy as a whole - and my Department's role is to spread that successful model throughout the economy.

Northern Ireland needs modern, productive workplaces that can meet the challenges of the new century. That is why the Bill is aimed at helping parents to balance the competing demands of work and family, so that they have a choice of continuing their careers if they wish; increasing maternity leave; introducing paid leave for fathers and adopting parents; simplifying the procedures to claim those payments; and giving parents of young children the right to request working hours that will allow them to balance their professional and home lives more effectively.

The modern economy faces the potential long-term problem of needing to increase the supply of skilled and unskilled workers. Much of that supply could come from women, who, traditionally, have taken long, and often involuntary, absences from employment. Any provision that makes it easier for women to return to work should be welcomed and encouraged, as long as it is properly balanced. It is also important to recognise the key role that fathers play in raising their children.

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning for his welcome of, and agreement with, the Bill. I assure him that we shall look into the issues in much greater detail at Committee Stage. Mr Dallat and Mr Carrick referred to the impact that the Bill would have on small businesses, and Mr Carrick specifically mentioned my press release of 20 May. I should explain that larger firms will be able to recoup 92% of maternity, paternity and adoption pay. Smaller businesses will be able to recoup the full amount of paternity and adoption pay, plus an additional 5% to cover administration costs.

It is difficult to estimate what the costs of flexible working would be, especially for small firms. However, I hope that the Bill will encourage employees and employers to reach sensible and mutually acceptable arrangements that will minimise the costs. As I mentioned, some of the costs will be offset by reductions in the cost of such matters as training, recruitment, and time off due to stress.

Mr Dallat queried whether two weeks' paid paternity leave was sufficient. The provision is intended to support the father at the time of the birth to allow him to become more involved in supporting the mother and caring for the new child. Two weeks is a balance between the interests of the employee and the employer. It will be necessary to keep the period of leave under review as we gain experience of how the provision works in practice. Of course, fathers may take up to four weeks' parental leave in a year, although it would be unpaid.

Mr Dallat queried the Bill's impact on low-income families. I presume that he is concerned about those fathers, or parents who adopt, who do not meet the earnings qualifications for statutory paternity pay. Relatively few fathers will not qualify for such pay. We must remember that the Bill is intended to help ease the problems of combining work and parenting. It does not seek to deal with the entire range of social security issues. Other forms of financial support, such as the new tax credits, will be available to working families in 2003. Of course, fathers who have the relevant continuous service with their employers will be able to take paternity leave, even if they do not qualify for paternity pay.

Mr Carrick asked about what I am doing to facilitate the work-life balance of individuals other than parents. I support flexibility in the workplace for all, but I see helping parents of younger children to achieve a better balance between the needs of their work and children as a priority. My Department continues to fund the national 'Work-Life Balance' campaign, which asks employers to consider the business benefits of enabling all their employees to achieve and maintain a better balance between work and other aspects of their lives.

Mrs Nelis also asked about small businesses, and I hope that I have answered that question. On the wider consultation, we came up with similar suggestions and proposals to those in Great Britain. Mrs Nelis also mentioned that the introduction of more family-friendly policies might have the unintended consequence of harming younger women's employment opportunities. However, I would be surprised if most employers did not opt to employ the best person for the job.

Monica McWilliams spoke about the Bill's title. It may be possible to consider an addition to the title that would better describe what the Bill will do.

Children adopted from abroad deserve exactly the same chance to spend time with their new families as those adopted here. Adoption leave is designed to allow all parents time off work to spend it with the child so that they can adjust to their new relationship.

Northern Ireland needs a modern, productive workplace that can meet the challenges of the new century, and that is what the new Bill aims to achieve. It is designed to help parents to balance the competing demands of work and family so that they have the option of continuing their careers if they so wish.

This Bill is very important. I am convinced that greater partnership and trust between employers and staff are key to enhancing productivity. As Ms McWilliams said, we should have had the Bill years ago, but I am pleased that we have it now. I wish that we had had it many years ago when I was a young staff nurse with four small children, but I welcome it today. It covers a range of issues with a common thread - better employment arrangements for everyone. The package offers a balance of rights and responsibilities; provides for a workplace reflecting a modern economy; encourages the retention of skills; extends help to working mothers; and recognises the role of fathers. It will reduce stress and conflict at work to the benefit of society.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Employment and Learning.

Enterprise Bill: 
Consumer Protection Measures

TOP

Mr Deputy Speaker:

We now move to the next item on the Order Paper. The Minister will make a statement, but we shall break at 2.30 pm for Question Time.

I beg to move

I seek the Assembly's endorsement of the principle that certain transferred consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill be applied UK-wide. If endorsed, that will be done with the agreement of the Department of Trade and Industry in Great Britain by inserting certain clauses into the Bill during its Report Stage. The relevant measures in the Bill are mostly outstanding items from the consumer affairs agenda set out in the 1999 White Paper entitled 'Modern Markets: Confident Consumers'. The measures mainly amend and replace corresponding provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973, which was given UK-wide effect under direct rule, despite the fact that consumer protection was and remains a transferred matter.

I seek the Assembly's agreement to notify the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that those measures and other related consumer protection measures included in the Bill should be considered by the UK Government and introduced at Westminster. I wish to explain why it is sensible that one instrument in one place should carry all those necessary amendments.

A key factor in my consideration is to strike the right balance between establishing local accountability and securing the benefits of utilising UK-wide legislation for the advantage of Northern Ireland consumers, especially when it can be secured at no local cost. Another key factor in my consideration is the proposed establishment of a new authority with extensive expertise - a new fair trading authority - whose remit might be extended to include Northern Ireland, again at no local cost.

The legislative approach that I propose would have the effect of maintaining the status quo, whereby the Fair Trading Act 1973, to which I referred earlier, would continue to operate on a UK-wide basis even though it would be dealing with transferred matters. That approach will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland are not disadvantaged in any way as regards their standard of protection compared with people in England, Scotland and Wales.

Members should also be aware that to adopt the proposed approach would not preclude the Assembly from taking a different approach at a future stage and introducing its own legislation. If that is seen as the desired longer-term preference, it will be facilitated. In the meantime, I propose to have my Department conduct a review that will address the unusual policy and legislative situation that has arisen in Northern Ireland concerning consumer protection matters and make recommendations on the best way forward in the longer term.

I should now like to inform Members of the details of the particular consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill that I propose should be applied throughout the UK. First, part I of the Fair Trading Act 1973 will be amended to replace the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading with a new statutory authority. That authority will exercise the director's current functions of consumer protection, which is a transferred matter, and competition, which is a reserved matter, in a more effective and efficient way.

Secondly, part II of the 1973 Act will be repealed. That part was intended to provide a means of dealing with new trade practices that might develop and that might have an adverse affect on consumers. It has not been successful and has not been used since 1977. The two Orders already made under part II, the Consumers Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 and the Business Advertisements (Disclosure) Order 1977, would remain in place.

Thirdly, part III of the 1973 Act will be reformed to enable the new statutory authority and other enforcement bodies, such as my Department's Trading Standards Service, to take proceedings to obtain a court order against traders who do not comply with their legal obligations to consumers. That will be possible if the provision is extended to Northern Ireland. The new remedies available to enforcing bodies, and the procedures to obtain them, will be included in the Bill. That will make it much easier for trading standards officers to take effective action against rogue traders.

Fourthly, the powers of the new statutory authority will be enhanced to approve and monitor industry codes of practice, which safeguard and promote consumer interests. Fifthly, the new statutory authority will be given a broad power to produce and disseminate educational material on matters affecting consumers' economic interests, or otherwise to take part in educational activities. Finally, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be granted a power to fund third parties to provide consumer advice, information, and educational activities.

To conclude, there are sound reasons to vote in favour of the motion. As Members may be aware, the Fair Trading Act 1973, which is one of the key foundation stones of consumer protection in Northern Ireland, operates across the UK. If the Enterprise Bill's new consumer protection measures were not to be extended to Northern Ireland, the 1973 Act would continue to apply unchanged in Northern Ireland until the law is amended. The result would be that there would be the anomalous situation of the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading being retained in Northern Ireland even though it would be abolished and replaced by a new authority in Great Britain. Secondly, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would continue to operate the 1973 Act in Northern Ireland while operating the Bill's new powers in Great Britain. Finally, and in my view the most serious deficit, Northern Ireland consumers would be forgoing the enhanced levels of protection offered by the Bill until such time as a Northern Ireland measure could become law, which could take two years or more.

I am pleased to confirm that the Executive have endorsed, subject to Members' approval, the proposal that those transferred consumer protection measures be applied throughout the UK. I also confirm that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, at its meeting on 29 May, agreed in principle with the consumer protection measures in the Bill and that Northern Ireland be included within the Bill's scope. I commend the motion to the House.

 The Committee considered the proposals at its meeting last week, and it supports the endorsement of the Enterprise Bill. It is important to recognise that this is a special situation. The Committee's one reservation, which I am sure that the Minister would appreciate, is that it would prefer to see home-grown legislation. As the Minister said, the proposals do not preclude that happening.

The Committee consulted the General Consumer Council, which is in favour of the proposals. In many ways, it is a method of fast-tracking. The Minister and the Department are determined to strengthen consumer protection law in Northern Ireland, and they recognise its importance. At its meeting this morning, the Committee supported the Department and the Minister in the four bids to obtain extra funding to strengthen consumer protection. The Committee is in favour of that and looks forward to an extended consultation on further necessary consumer protection law.

One consumer protection issue that I would like to be considered is whether the laws that deal with public transport could be strengthened, in much the same way as there is a regulator for electricity prices.

The Committee supports the endorsement, and I call on the Assembly to support the Minister.

I shall be brief. Time is short and my speech was disrupted by Ireland scoring in the ninety-third minute. We live to fight another day, but that is perhaps for a different occasion.

I strongly endorse the Minister's recommendation, which has the full support of the General Consumer Council. Consumer protection must be strengthened here. The 1973 arrangements must be upgraded for several reasons, because life has changed considerably in those 29 years. In the past few weeks, I have said on the record that an energy agency should be set up. Although we stopped short of doing that, nevertheless all the issues contained therein and the fragmented nature of consumer protection concern me.

I support the Minister in his efforts to strengthen the hands of trading standards personnel against rogue traders, and those who are less than honest and honourable. There is a need for better educational efforts across the range of consumer entitlement, because we often buy goods when we are away from home, in places we are unsure about or when we are on vacation. All too often it is more bother than it is worth to take action if those goods are faulty. There should be a mechanism to deal with that. The funding of third parties would go a long way to addressing that issue.

My time is running short, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. On my behalf and on behalf of my party, I fully endorse the Minister's efforts.

Members, please take your ease until 2.30 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

TOP

Questions 3 and 9, in the names of Mr McCarthy and Mr Dallat respectively, have been withdrawn and do not require a written answer. Question 7, in the name of Mr McGrady, will receive a written answer.

TOP

2.

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to give details of the permanent presence that his Department maintains in the United States of America and in the European Union.

(AQO 1485/01)

My Department maintains a presence in the United States - in Chicago, San Jose, Boston, Atlanta and New York - through Invest Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. A European presence is maintained in London, Düsseldorf, Brussels and Dublin. Staff in the New York office of the Tourist Board will transfer to Tourism Ireland Ltd soon.

Will the Minister undertake to carry out an audit of the official and non-official, formal and informal channels for networking in the EU and the USA, and to consult the public, who may have a useful input?

Our presence outside Northern Ireland is under continuous review. I have no plans to hold a full consultation on the location of European and American offices, except as part of the recent consultation on the corporate plan for Invest Northern Ireland. However, I accept that the public can provide good advice and that it is useful to listen to their views.

The new board of Invest Northern Ireland takes seriously its responsibilities for overseas representation. I, too, take an interest in that, and I assure Mr Hamilton that any advice or shared experience will be taken on board.

What job opportunities and investment have been created as a result of the permanent presence of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the United States of America and the European Union?

It would be impossible for my Department to operate without a presence in the United States of America, which is our major trading partner outside the United Kingdom. Personnel are needed in the United States to secure investment. For example, in the past two days I have met, in the USA, companies that are considering investing in Northern Ireland or expanding their businesses there. Without legwork in areas where we have a significant trading partner or potential sources of investment by our representatives, who know the individuals and who watch the competition from other developing countries and regions, we would be handing opportunities to our opponents.

Last year, I decided to open an office in Dublin. In recent months, we have carried out work in Brussels. The situation is reviewed constantly, and I believe in meaningful overseas representation to promote Northern Ireland as a major inward investment opportunity.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>