Ms Patricia King:

The level of consultation was as follows. Through the Labour Employer Economic Forum, we put forward our view on remote working since 2020. We then publicly campaigned for the right to request it. At least three times the Minister in charge said, through the Labour Employer Economic Forum, that he was disposed towards putting forward legislation. We had a general discussion about that on three occasions. There was then a public consultation, in which we took part in the same way as everybody else. At the last meeting of the Labour Employer Economic Forum on 10 December, the Minister told us the heads of a Bill would be published in January. He did not share those heads with us so we had no idea what was in them, nor was there any disclosure at those meetings as to what would be in the heads of the Bill. When we saw those heads, it was the first time we knew what was intended with them. That is why it was so disappointing.

As the Deputy will know herself from previous experience, and as Deputy Bruton will also know because he participated in the process, it used to be the case that potential legislation was the subject of separate discussions with employers and trade unions. On some occasions there were joint discussions, but these were not held that often. We would be asked for our views on legislation and would engage with officials from the Department and share strong views, particularly on certain aspects of proposed legislation. To give the Deputy an example, we did that when the Bill on zero-hour contracts, which aimed to provide the flexibility needed to comply with the directive on transparency and so on, was going through. We had hours and hours of discussions on that. We did not get the Department to accept everything we wanted it to, but we at least had engagement. It is an awful pity that, on proposed legislation as important as this Bill, we did not get that opportunity because the Bill would have been much more fit for purpose had we done that.