Debate contribution: 'Good Jobs' Employment Rights Bill

Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on 28 April 2025.

MLA

Dr Caoimhe Archibald

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

28 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statements

Heading

'Good Jobs' Employment Rights Bill

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4913891

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes. The legislation that is passing through Westminster differs in a number of areas from what we are proposing to do. In some cases, it has perhaps clouded some of the engagement that we have been having on our Bill. There are concerns about measures that are in the Bill that is going through Westminster not being proposed in our Bill, while, in some areas, we are going further than what is being proposed in Britain. For example, some of our proposals on trade union access go further. There are differences in the proposed way forward on things such as zero-hours contracts. We propose that people have a right to a banded-hours contract after a period of working. We will engage on what that period might be. As I set out in the document, it could be 26 weeks. We see that as being a reasonable period, but we are open to hearing views. The worker would instigate such a request. That right would be set out clearly in the written statement of particulars that workers would receive as a day-1 right so that they are clear on their rights and entitlements. A different system is being proposed in Britain, whereby the employer will be obliged to offer a move away from a zero-hours contract every 12 weeks. Businesses have some concerns about the administrative burden that that would place on them. On parental and family-related leave, there are some differences. With some of that, we are catching up with what has already been put in place in Britain, but having an enabling power, for example, to introduce paid carers' leave is not something that I am aware of being introduced in Britain. I know that there will be engagement, and extensive lobbying will be happening there as well. It is something that I would very much like to see brought forward here, and I will engage with Executive colleagues on that. I am sure that there are other differences that I have missed, but we will engage further through the Committee and in correspondence in the weeks ahead.

As the Member is likely aware, gender pay gap reporting protections are the responsibility of the Minister for Communities. I believe that that is an important way of promoting equality and preventing differences in pay based on gender. Minister Lyons corresponded with my predecessor on the issue, and I am more than happy to work with him to accommodate his Department in legislating on those issues using my Bill as a vehicle, should he wish to do so and if he is able to do so within the time frames that we propose.

I do not agree with the Member's characterisation of a Bill that is not yet drafted. There needs to be further engagement with the business community, trade unions and other stakeholders on the shape of what is brought forward. As I outlined in response to other Members and in my statement itself, what we have achieved and what I have proposed today is a balanced way forward that takes on board the views of employers and the need to very much upgrade our workers' rights legislation. Yes, what we are proposing is ambitious, but it is achievable, and I look forward to engaging with and working with the Committee as we bring forward the legislation, which, with the support of my Executive colleagues, I aim to introduce to the Assembly in January 2026.

Obviously, the Labour Relations Agency has been involved in the engagement to get the proposed legislation to this stage. I continue to engage with that organisation, and I am happy to engage on any resourcing issues that it may have. It has not highlighted those to me to date.

I thank the Member for his question. He is testing me here in relation to me being able to find my figures. Off the top of my head, I believe that there are about 11,000 people. I think that those figures are from 2023. I think that, in the last figures, the coverage of zero-hours contracts in business as a whole was about 1·8%. They are quite a small cohort of the coverage of contracts as a whole across our economy.

However, the nature of those contracts and how that affects the people trapped in one even though they work regular hours each week is the issue that I want to tackle. As I have set out, a small number of exceptions will be set out in regulations for where there is genuinely seasonal or casual work. I will engage with unions and employers as we develop those regulations.

I thank the Member for his question. As I set out, where a worker is on a zero-hours contract but works regular weekly hours, that person will have a right to a banded-hours contract. There will be a small number of exceptions in cases of what is genuinely casual and seasonal work. The Member will understand that that arrangement may suit some people. For most people, it will not; they will want regular shift work. For music events, for example, a large number of people may be needed for a short period, so such an arrangement may be required there. There will also be seasonal work that, by its very nature, is on a short-term basis. Those conditions will be set out in regulations and will be narrow in their scope. The intention is to ensure that people who are currently on zero-hours contracts that I would view as exploitative will be entitled to a regular work contract and a set of hours that they can expect to work every week.

I thank the Member for her question. The experience of people such as her helped to shape the proposals. We are trying to meet the needs of our community out there. Neonatal care pay will be paid at the statutory rate, which is uplifted annually in line with inflation. It is currently £187·18 a week or 90% of the employee's weekly earnings, whichever is lower. Any difference from how the rights operate in Britain would require HMRC to implement costly system changes that would result not only in a delay in the right's becoming operational but in annually recurring costs for the Executive.

I thank the Member for his question. As I have made clear over the course of the statement and my responses today, my desire is that the right to carer's leave be a paid entitlement, but that will be subject to funding being agreed by the Executive. The cost of a paid entitlement will, of course, depend on a number of factors. Ulster University analysis commissioned by my Department suggests that the annually recurring costs of a paid carer's leave entitlement could be between £10·3 million and £75·2 million a year, depending on the rate of pay and uptake and assuming a maximum entitlement of five days a year. To ensure that the policy best meets the needs of stakeholders and best serves the desired strategic outcome of ensuring that carers can remain in or enter the workforce, I will commission further research and a call for evidence. That important body of work will help to inform cost options for the Executive to consider and, hopefully, agree. If, however, a paid entitlement is introduced in Britain — obviously, the legislation is still going through Westminster, and similar lobbying will take place among carers there, as you would rightly expect — the terms and conditions that would be adopted there could be mirrored here. The annually recurring costs would then be paid from the Consolidated Fund, and there would be no additional cost for the Executive. I think that we all recognise the invaluable role that unpaid carers have in supporting their loved ones and others, and we want to be able to recognise that.

I thank the Member for her question. When I wrote to Executive colleagues today, I highlighted the proposals that I have made and my desire to discuss a paid carer's leave entitlement. The timelines on research will have to correspond with the timelines on drafting and introducing the legislation. That will happen in the very near future, and I am happy to correspond with the Member on the exact timetables.

I thank the Member for her question. Yes, of course, continued engagement with stakeholders is a fundamental part of the next stage of the process. My Department will seek to further refine the details of the proposals in consultation with key stakeholders, primarily through the LRA engagement forum. I encourage all members of that forum to engage constructively with the Department as it is only by being part of the process that stakeholders' views can be reflected. For example, I seek to introduce a statutory code of practice on facilitating workplace relationships. That will be one of the first key asks for the LRA forum. There will also be further opportunities for engagement, once the Bill is introduced in the Assembly, through the scrutiny of the Economy Committee. I very much look forward to the further engagement that I will have with all involved in relation to the proposals and getting them introduced to the Assembly.

I thank the Member for his question. Research was published on 18 June last year by my predecessor, Conor Murphy, on the case for good jobs. That research from the Labour Relations Agency, which was carried out by the University of Warwick, demonstrates the benefits of good jobs for businesses as well as for workers. The research looked at local case studies, comparing the seven components of job quality with three key business outcomes: increased innovation; productivity; and employee health and well-being. The research demonstrates the link between good jobs and those outcomes, highlighting the fact that positive employee engagement and well-being are mutually beneficial for workers and business performance.

1,647 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 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.

Challenge this classification