Assembly Business: Suspension of Assembly

Public Petition: Neglect of the Gray’s Hill Area in North Down

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage

Draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers

Draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

Draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures

Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: Period Extension

Harbours Bill: Period Extension

Oral Answers to Questions

Department of Education

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Department of Finance and Personnel

The Future of the Mater Hospital

The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

TOP

Assembly Business: Suspension of Assembly

Mr Speaker:

I have received a letter this morning from the Secretary of State, which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:

I nevertheless believe the Agreement has delivered enormous benefits, and points the way forward. I and my ministerial team will seek to carry forward good government within Northern Ireland, to work with the Irish Government and the parties to restore the devolved institutions as soon as we can, and to remove once and for all concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

I want to work energetically in the economic and social fields. Though I hope suspension will be brief, there are serious problems to be dealt with and it would be wrong to approach matters simply as caretakers. We shall be assisted in taking forward our work by the great achievements that have been brought about by all parties within the Assembly and the Executive. Despite the tensions, I believe the period of devolution was a great success, and a great advance for Northern Ireland. We must get back as soon as possible to the position where people in Northern Ireland are in charge of their own affairs.

With suspension, the Assembly and its committees can no longer meet. We hope suspension will be short-lived, and we recognise that Assembly Members should, for the time being, continue to represent their constituencies.

But I believe there will be an expectation that the removal of the Assembly’s core functions must be reflected in arrangements for it and its members. We envisage therefore, with effect from next month, bringing Assembly members’ salaries back to the levels that applied in the shadow period (adjusted for subsequent increases to date). We shall immediately review closely the allowances that are paid in the Assembly, from the same perspective. Assembly members will for the present continue to have access to Parliament Buildings in order to carry out their constituency work.

But if the Assembly remains without its essential responsibilities, I believe these arrangements will need to be looked at again. We shall therefore review the situation by the end of the year.

The Assembly has an impressive record to its credit. It has been a forum for dialogue between different strains of political thought unprecedented in Northern Ireland, but essential to our future. Its committees have been diligent in holding the Executive to account, to the great benefit of public administration. If I may say so, I admire the way you yourself have guided it in the most tense situations.

We must do all we can to restore it, and the other institutions, as soon as possible. I shall do all I can to bring that about."

Signed by the Secretary of State.

Mr Speaker, will you inform the House if the Secretary of State talked to you about the letter before you received it? If that was not so, is it not a matter of grave discourtesy on his part that he did not consult with you at the same time as he consulted with party leaders?

With regard to payments, can you confirm that the salaries of those who are now employed in party offices and registered as workers in those offices for Members of the Assembly will remain as they are, just as your salary will remain as it is?

First, the Secretary of State has written to me, and I fully expect that there will be further communication. However, in direct response to the Member’s question, it was obviously much more important that he communicate with party leaders, such as the Member, rather than with me.

As for concerns about the other arrangements to which the Member refers, I cannot immediately be more clear than by recounting the content of the letter from the Secretary of State. However, it may be of assistance if I remind Members of some of the administrative arrangements that there were during the previous suspension, particularly in view of some of the Member’s comments. Clearly there were some misunderstandings, and I shall seek to correct at least one of them.

In the previous situation, direct rule was reinstated and the Assembly remained in place, but the Assembly and its Committees could not meet or discuss business, and that included the Assembly Commission. Those in elected office — Ministers, junior Ministers, Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees — could no longer hold office. Participation in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council was suspended. No functions could be conferred on implementation bodies. Members had the usual access to Parliament Buildings. Members’ salaries were abated to the pre-devolution level, and the office cost allowances were also abated to the pre-devolution level, but not until the end of that financial year. Party allowance was reduced, and that obviously might have a bearing, if it were mirrored on this occasion, on the Member’s question about party staff, but I cannot give him any more enlightenment on that, for I have none myself. The childcare allowance was not affected.

The Speaker continued to hold office, but his salary was abated to pre-devolution level, and I have no expectation that it will be otherwise on this occasion, Dr Paisley — unless, in your conversation with the Secretary of State, you put a good word in for me. I am sure that it would carry heavily, were you to do so.

Committee Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons did not receive salaries for their work in chairing Committees. Some other measures, which were not referred to in the correspondence from the previous Secretary of State, came into place during the last suspension. The Secretary of State discharged the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. During the first six months of suspension, legislation on devolved matters was made by Order in Council at Westminster, and the Secretary of State could extend that for periods of up to six months if required. Northern Ireland Departments discharged their functions subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State, who appointed NIO Ministers to look after those functions.

As far as the Assembly Commission was concerned, its functions were taken over directly by the Secretary of State, and the accounting officer gave account of his functions in that way.

I trust that that gives some clarity on some of the important matters that the Member raised.

Will you clarify the standing of the intergovernmental bodies? There has been a lot of discussion in the press about their going from strength to strength, but from what you read out, I think that such progress will be limited by the agreement, which I have been reading this morning.

As far as I am concerned, my responsibility is to try to interpret the procedures of this House. Interpretation of the agreement goes well beyond that. Foreseeing what politicians at any level may choose to do subsequent to today would require a prophet not a Speaker, and, as the Member knows, I am not even the son of a prophet; I am just the son of a poor Presbyterian minister.

It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to declare the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly Committees in the House. That might have given Members an opportunity to explore with him his comment on the Assembly’s great achievements. It would be interesting to hear how he would manage to put a spin on that. In the wider community, there is cause to acknowledge the great achievement that will occur when the House rises and we see an end to the terms of the two Sinn Féin Ministers. It is cause for rejoicing in Northern Ireland —

Can I ask the Member for his point of order?

Thank you very much.

I am not sure that there is a ruling for me to give in regard to that.

Is it not ironic that on the day on which the House loses any power that it has, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party is more concerned about wages and salaries than he is about contributing to the welfare of our senior citizens who need personal care?

Order. The Member must know that what he is raising is not a point of order and that this is not an opportunity for debate.

My point of order concerns a matter that is recorded in Hansard. During the debate on the review of post-primary education on Tuesday 8 October, the Minister of Education, in reference to the transfer test, said:

Within days of that statement, the Minister acted arbitrarily to abolish the 11-plus. Given his conduct, his approach to the House and his subsequent actions, is that a matter to which the Speaker should give some consideration?

There will be an opportunity during Question Time to ask questions of the Minister. It remains to be seen whether what he said to the House, as recorded in Hansard, or what he said outside the House, as recorded and advised by the Member, turns out to be the more accurate.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can inform the House whether the Executive ratified the highly cynical and highly political decision that the Minister of Education made to declare a date for the ending of the 11-plus tests. Indeed, was that decision even raised with the Executive? If not, does the Minister have the power to make such a decision without reference to the Executive, the Committee for Education or the Assembly, as was promised by the First Minister? Is this yet another example of the First Minister breaking a promise, particularly as he told us that IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers would be held to account and would not be able to act as despots?

Order. Again, if the Member chooses, he may ask appropriate supplementary questions of the Minister this afternoon if the opportunity arises for him.

I cannot say whether this was a matter agreed by the Executive or not; that is clearly a matter for the Executive. As far as procedure is concerned, it is my understanding — but no more than that — that developments of policy in this way are matters to be agreed by the Executive. The Member may care to raise directly with the Minister or other Members of the Executive whether the Executive agreed that matter.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 July the Secretary of State told the House of Commons that he would not hesitate to send to you — and, through you, to the Floor of the House — a motion to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA if it was found to be in further breach of its obligations. Has the Secretary of State raised that possibility with you, and have you discussed it?

Furthermore, can you say whether any other parties have signed the exclusion motion, currently in the Business Office, designed to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin? Outside the House, I hear parties, particularly the Ulster Unionist Party, calling for the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA, but they are failing to take the steps necessary to have the matter debated in the Assembly.

Can you tell the House whether the matters listed in today’s Order Paper that relate to legislation will be taken today despite the Assembly’s imminent suspension? When suspension kicks in, what will happen to the legislation that is currently in Committee or on the Floor of the House?

The Member will understand that it is not normally my practice to describe discussions that have, or have not, taken place with the Secretary of State, Ministers or parties. It is wise for me to maintain that practice. However, I can confirm to the Member and to the House that I have not received any such exclusion motion from the Secretary of State under the relevant section.

I am not aware precisely which Members have or have not signed a motion on the No Day Named List, but that is a matter of public record; there is no obstruction to any Member looking at the names that are on that list. If they wish to make account of that, that is entirely a matter for themselves, not for me. It would, of course, be a matter for the Business Committee, and the Member is familiar with the procedure to be followed if there are sufficient signatures.

With regard to today’s Order Paper, we shall simply proceed in the normal fashion, as is proper, and, I trust, in the normal congenial, courteous and parliamentary fashion in which Members have been in the habit of conducting themselves here, doing our duty and fulfilling our responsibilities to those who have elected us.

I am considering the matter of the status of legislation, but I have one or two comments to make. First, it seems to me that during the period of suspension, it will be as though that legislation were frozen, and it may well be that at the end of suspension, it can be taken up as though the clock had stopped and were restarted — in the same way as is the case with ministerial office and chairmanship of Committees, and so forth. However, I say that not as a ruling, because I want to look more fully at the legalities of that. If we find ourselves in that circumstance, I will then give an appropriate ruling.

However, it is entirely possible that the Secretary of State and his Ministers may regard some of the legislation that has been partly carried through the Assembly as being of such importance, timeliness or urgency that they may choose to convert it into a form in which it might suitably be passed at Westminster, should they acquire the necessary parliamentary time. If that were to be the case, naturally such legislation carried through would fall when the Assembly returned. That is the best guidance I can give the Member and the House in the present circumstances.

Mr Speaker, while you cannot confirm which parties or groupings have signed the motion sent in by my hon Friends and other Colleagues, can you confirm that no other political party has forwarded an exclusion motion to you, for example, the Ulster Unionist party?

As far as I am aware we would not be very accepting of further motions coming forward on something that was already there, unless there was very good reason for doing so. I am not aware of anything else having come forward. However, it is not a matter that I checked before coming into the Chamber. The Member is entitled to checked the matter in the Business Office.

Having received no further requests for points of order, we will move to the next item.

TOP

Public Petition: 
Neglect of the Gray’s Hill Area in North Down

Ms Morrice has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.

I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the residents and the business community from the Gray’s Hill area of Bangor in north Down.

More than 100 people have signed the petition, which highlights the neglect of the area and calls for its improvement in accordance with the town centre management strategy prepared by Ferguson & McIlveen. This major gateway into Bangor is a mixed residential and commercial street which suffers from speeding traffic, a lack of parking management and general neglect. The petition emphasises the broad concern about the matter in the north Down area. As you can see, Mr Speaker, I continue to work for my constituents, and I will keep on doing so.

I will send a copy of the petition to the Minister for Social Development, when such a Minister has been appointed. In the meantime, I will send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development.

TOP

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: 
Second Stage

Mr Speaker:

I advise the House that I have received a valid petition of concern in respect of this Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 27. No vote can therefore be held on its Second Stage until at least one day has passed.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, can you say whether, when this information is sent to the Northern Ireland Office, it will also carry the warning that a reasoned amendment was tabled, which was supported by the majority of parties in the House?

I can confirm that the fact that the Member has raised the point of order and has tabled a reasoned amendment will clearly be in Hansard for forwarding to whichever Minister addresses the matter. Whether that amendment would have had the support of the majority of Members is, of course, one of the great unknowns of life.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

I will call Mr Dodds, and then we will have a further point of order.

For the second week in a row, this business has not proceeded. Last week we were told that the two junior Ministers were not in a position to move the business because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were not in the Chamber. The junior Ministers have obviously been trusted with the onerous job of not moving the motion, so they have been trusted with something.

It is outrageous that, for two weeks in a row, this item has been listed on the Order Paper and, for two weeks in a row, it has gone absolutely nowhere. We have the two junior Ministers from OFMDFM telling us that the motion is not moved. The important point I want to make is that, as Mr Billy Hutchinson has said, and as many Members will agree, the motion is not being moved today because the Ministers know that it would not be approved. It would not pass through the House. The clear message that should be given to any Minister who may take over this responsibility is that there is a groundswell of opinion in the House against the contents of the Bill.

Order. Let me remain with the point of order. Of course it is regrettable if matters are tabled on an Order Paper two weeks in a row and it is not possible to proceed with them. I suspect that, in the greater scheme of things, it is one of the less regrettable things about today, but that is another matter. With regard to the question of support, I cannot rule on that matter as a point of order.

Mr Speaker, the Order Paper states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would move the Second Stage of the Bill, although I understand that the Bill is in the name of Mr Haughey, but he did not withdraw it. Is it one of the more cowardly acts of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to send its deputies here to do this work?

It is quite clearly in order for any Minister representing the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to proceed with such a Bill and to handle it as has been agreed in that Office.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any means by which the Assembly can express its concerns about the Bill to the Northern Ireland Office? Given that no public consultation has taken place on the Bill, it would be a matter of concern if the Northern Ireland Office rushed it through.

Order. I understand entirely why the Member has a specific concern about the Bill, as he is the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre. However, I think that he is aware that there is no facility for the Assembly to do that in the short time that appears to be available to us for the rest of today other than through the points of order that the Member and others have already raised.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that the record of today’s proceedings and the views expressed by Members through points of order will be one method by which the Northern Ireland Office will be made aware of the Assembly’s view on this matter. However, is it not the case that this business was on the Order Paper last week and that it was announced that it could not be dealt with, although the two junior Ministers were present in the House on that occasion and could have moved it? We were told that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wished to be present to hear the Assembly’s views. Is it not the case that the two junior Ministers came today intent on moving the Bill and decided not to move it only when they saw that there was a petition of concern signed by over 30 Members?

The Member is tempting me to look into what is going on in the minds of the junior Ministers, but I am on duty today as the Speaker, and not in any other capacity.

Mr Speaker do you attribute any significance to the suspension by the Secretary of State, whose words you read out, taking place at midnight tonight, given that the Bill was on the Order Paper to be dealt with today?

I am not quite sure that I see the connection that appears to be in the Member’s mind. As I understand it, such suspensions can take place only at midnight; there might be a question of whether it was midnight tonight, midnight last night, or midnight on another night, but they must take place at midnight. As I understand it, that is the proper procedure for them.

There are several points of order, and I will come to Minister Haughey’s if possible.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When did you receive notice of the withdrawal of the Bill? Did it take two lecterns in front of two Ministers to announce "Not moved"?

The Member must know that if matters are withdrawn in advance of the sitting, as was the case last week, I make that clear. However, the Ministers have taken the decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill. That is clear parliamentary procedure.

The Junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Haughey): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill was taken long before Mr Leslie or I knew that there was a petition of concern. That is a matter of fact.

On a second point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Members to request you to convey the feelings of the House to the Northern Ireland Office when the opinion of the House has not been recorded by means of a vote?

Will you confirm that it has been indicated to you that it is the DUP, in alliance with Sinn Féin, that opposes the Bill, and that those two parties do not constitute a majority of the Members of the House? [Interruption].

Order. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Member for confirming when the decision was taken. As for the question of how much support or otherwise there is for the Bill, the reasoned amendment or whatever, I can say only what I have said already — there cannot be an assumption of any particular support or lack of support, save for one particular fact, which is that the petition of concern contained 32 signatures. Other than that, no assumption can be made about support for any matter that has not come before the House and been voted on in the usual way.

There has been much discussion about the petition of concern. Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the motion must receive cross-community support in order for approval to be granted? Will you confirm that such cross-community support is also required for the House to exclude Sinn Féin?

I can confirm both those matters. Once a petition of concern has been certified as valid and has been received in due time, it postpones the vote and requires it to have cross-community support. The Member is correct that the same applies to an exclusion motion.

Are you concerned, Mr Speaker, to learn from the junior Minister that the decision not to move the motion was taken a long time ago, yet you were not informed of it? Is that not a grave discourtesy to the Assembly, and should the Minister not be asked to get to his feet and apologise? [Interruption].

Order.

Resign.

Order. When Members call for such action, I trust that they are not, as it would appear to be in parliamentary terms, referring to the Speaker. The Speaker does his best with all the ignorance at his disposal in all these various ways.

Lest the collaboration between the DUP and Sinn Féin alarm junior Minister Haughey, I advise him that the Women’s Coalition was only too glad to sign the petition of concern on this occasion.

Further to the point of order that junior Minister Haughey raised, is it not the case that had he moved the Second Stage today the House could have made a decision? He could have found out exactly how the House feels. An amendment was tabled, and it would have had to be called today.

I can confirm that if the matter had proceeded, the amendment standing in the name of Mr Billy Hutchinson would have been taken. However, given the petition of concern, which was headed up by Dr Paisley, had the reasoned amendment not been made, the view of the House would not have been able to be ascertained until at least one day hence.

Further to the point of order that Mr Peter Robinson raised, when the motion that the Second Stage be agreed was not moved last week, Mr Speaker, you said that you were notified in time and were therefore able to make an announcement at the beginning of proceedings. That being the case, why was the same procedure not followed on this occasion? If it was not followed, does that not amount to a grave discourtesy to the Speaker?

Not necessarily. A different procedure has been followed: in one case the motion has been withdrawn, and in another it has not been moved. Other procedures might also have been used. Members have a range of possibilities from which to choose. However, the Member has given his view and interpretation of proceedings.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has either of the junior Ministers, the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister informed you which parts of the Bill they want the Secretary of State to deal with?

It would not be appropriate for Ministers to take action of that kind in respect of the Speaker. It is not a procedural matter and, insofar as there might be any procedures involved, they would not be procedures in this place, but in another place. That is not a matter which has been referred to, nor would I expect it to be.

I know that Members have a sense that there is a time within which they must raise all their points of order for the rest of the session, but we must try to move on.

We can take this up this afternoon, if you want to draw it to a close now.

Can you confirm that no Sinn Féin Members signed the petition of concern that was tabled? The comments from across the House show widespread party opposition to the Bill. Never have so many dispatch boxes been employed to achieve, and to say, so little. Can you also confirm that enough Members signed the petition of concern — including enough Unionists for the purposes of the cross-community vote — to ensure that the Bill would not have got anywhere?

I can confirm what the Member said about there being a valid number of signatures. However, as I have previously indicated, it is not appropriate for me to go through whose name is or is not on the petition of concern, save that it is a matter of record which is in the Business Office and which Members can follow up as they wish.

TOP

Draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots
and Notice to Employers

The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):

I beg to move

Order.

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmative resolution. On approval by the Assembly the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on the appointed day.

The draft code is issued under article 95 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Department power, subject to Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code takes account of the current legislative provisions on industrial action ballots and notice to employers, including those contained in the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. It is intended as a practical instrument to assist a range of individuals and organisations, including employers, trade unions and employees, to regulate and improve industrial relations. It also provides guidance on statutory rights.

The draft code is relevant to any union involved in industrial action ballots, to employers who are affected by them and to union members who may be asked to vote. The draft code seeks to ensure that appropriate action is taken to resolve disputes before industrial action. It sets out details of best practice on whether a ballot is appropriate, how to prepare for a ballot, the specific process and steps to be followed when holding a ballot, and what action should be taken following a ballot. It provides helpful summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer and the unions.

The draft code does not impose legal obligations, and failure to observe it does not render anyone liable to proceedings. However, it may be admissible in evidence before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if it is deemed to be relevant. Full consultation has taken place in Northern Ireland on the content of the draft code. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.

I support the motion. The Committee considered the code of practice at its meeting on 3 October 2002 and supports it. It has been well described by the Minister. It seems to be based on a similar code in Great Britain, produced by the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. I urge the House to support the motion.

I thank the Chairperson for his remarks. The draft code sets out fair and reasonable procedures for parties to adopt when a ballot is to be held. It balances the duties of employers and trade unions, with the emphasis on responsible behaviour.

TOP

Draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures

I beg to move

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmation by the Assembly. On approval by the Assembly, the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.

The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Labour Relations Agency power, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on disciplinary procedures and practices in employment that was issued by the Labour Relations Agency in November 1990.

The draft code will replace the old one. The main reason for the revision is the need for the draft code to take account of a legislative change. Article 12 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provided for a new statutory right for individuals to be accompanied at certain disciplinary and grievance hearings. That right came into effect on 2 June 2002. The draft code gives practical guidance to employers, workers and workers’ representatives who are involved in grievance and disciplinary matters.

In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code addresses disciplinary issues relating to problems of conduct or performance and how employers seek to address them. It provides guidance on the practices and procedures that could, and indeed, in some instances should, be followed. It considers how employers can best handle the grievances that individuals bring to them and provides guidance on the statutory right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

The code highlights the best practice principles in terms of rules and procedures. It outlines appropriate structures and the balance between formal and informal processes, provides guidance on how decisions should be made and recorded, and suggests timescales by which formal warnings may be regarded as spent. The impact assessment undertaken on the draft code concludes that it will not disadvantage any of the groups specified in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; nor will it place any additional costs on employers. It will have a positive impact in the workplace.

While failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if deemed to be relevant. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

I support the motion. The Committee considered the draft code at its meeting on Thursday 3 October 2002. As the Minister said, the code is being introduced as a replacement for an existing code of practice, and it attempts to give helpful guidance to employers and employees. It is based on a similar code in Great Britain produced by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is the GB equivalent of the Labour Relations Agency. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. As the Minister said, the regulatory and equality impact assessments have judged the code favourably. I urge the House to support the motion.

I welcome the Chairperson's remarks. The draft code sets out practical guidance which aims to promote the improvement of industrial relations and, therefore, ultimately enhance the economic performance of industry.

TOP

Draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures

I beg to move

The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002, and it is subject to the Assembly's approval. The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, gives the Labour Relations Agency power to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations.

The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on redundancy consultation and procedures that was issued in September 1998. The revisions take account of changes to the legislative provisions on consultation and collective redundancies as a consequence of the enactment of the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. The draft code will replace the old one. On approval by the Assembly, this draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.

Members will agree that all organisations must adapt to economic and technological change in order to remain viable. Sometimes this may necessitate a change in their employment requirements with regard to the numbers and skills of the employees involved. In circumstances where redundancy becomes necessary, employers should recognise the damaging effects this may have on employees and should, therefore, handle redundancies with due care and consideration.

The aim of the code is to provide best practice guidance on redundancies - from early consultation about the likelihood of redundancies to the management of the process. It seeks to encourage all organisations to agree a framework within which a change in employment may be handled fairly, effectively and comprehensibly. The code seeks to ensure that employers are aware of their statutory obligations and employees of their entitlements under the relevant legislation. The code also gives guidance on the main features of a redundancy procedure.

In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code provides summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer with employees or their representatives when a redundancy situation is proposed, including such matters as the election of representatives, if necessary. It suggests ways of reducing or avoiding compulsory redundancies, sets out the principles of fair selection of those to be made redundant and outlines the rights of an employee when under notice of redundancy.

The impact assessments undertaken on the draft code conclude that it will not disadvantage any of the section 75 groups; it will place no additional costs on employers; and it will have a positive impact in the workplace. Although failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court if it is deemed to be relevant. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.

TOP

Next >>