Debate contribution: Good Jobs Employment Rights Consultation
Debate contribution by Mr Conor Murphy on .
- MLA
- Mr Conor Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 1 July 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Good Jobs Employment Rights Consultation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498818
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It is the case that the bulk of what we are dealing with here is devolved to us. We have to set the standards for our own economy and our own particular circumstances. We are, largely, a small- and medium-sized enterprise economy, and we have to recognise that. This is a fairly comprehensive consultation package.
The Member will know that we need to move towards legislation very quickly on the other side of that consultation. We have to get that consultation going with the Committee.
Some matters can be addressed through guidance or other measures. We will certainly look at that if the consultation throws that up, but we have responsibility for our own employment law and for modernising that, and we have responsibility to set those terms in ways that benefit our own economy and set of particular circumstances.
The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act requires the existing entitlements for parents who sadly experience the loss of a child to be extended to parents who suffer a miscarriage. It also requires the overall right to pay for that leave to be made a day-1 right. My Department consulted on those issues in late 2022. I wish to take into account the outcome of that consultation before determining the next steps. In the meantime, my officials are continuing to engage with HMRC on the IT system changes that are necessary to bring the new right into operation by April 2026.
Yes. There is a recognition that the system of work has changed for everyone since the pandemic. A variety of people work from home. Some of the proposals cover your entitlement to be off when you are at home in order to recognise that you have your own space for rest and relaxation, but also to try to recognise that the system of work is not the one that we had five or six years ago, and that many people work from home directly. The consultation has begun and is fairly wide-ranging. It will throw up particular questions that may not have been anticipated, although quite a bit of pre-consultation has been done to bring it this far. If other issues are thrown up that relate to specific areas like working from home, we are happy to consider those as part of the consultation and include them in the response on the other side of it.
The Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. Under that legislation, my Department can bring forward regulations to introduce a new right for workers who are victims of domestic abuse to access 10 days' paid leave. I fully support that progressive legislation, which will provide valuable support to victims of domestic abuse. I want to progress that alongside the wider work on the employment rights Bill. That is why I intend to launch a consultation on how the Department can shape the regulations that are needed to introduce that important new employment right later this week.
496 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.43 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.41 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:49 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.