northern ireland assembly Tuesday 26 June 2007 Executive Committee Business Assembly Business Private Members’ Business Adjournment The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Taxis Bill Second Stage The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Taxis Bill [NIA 4/07] be agreed. The Taxis Bill is enabling legislation that provides for the creation of a comprehensive new framework for the regulation of taxis. Its overriding purpose is to make taxi services in Northern Ireland safer and better for customers. The pressing need for the legislation was established following an extensive review of taxi regulation, which was carried out by the Department of the Environment (DOE) in response to concerns about the numbers of illegal taxis in operation. Northern Ireland has a relatively vibrant and growing taxi sector, which involves at least 800 businesses of varying sizes and creates self-employment for more than 12,000 working taxi drivers. However, most taxi legislation dates back to the early 1980s; in fact, in Belfast, taxis are regulated by by-laws that were devised in the early 1950s. The problem is that if all the legislation were combined, it would not add up to effective taxi regulation for the twenty-first century. Most importantly, the lack of enforcement powers and penalties means that the DOE cannot properly address the needs of a taxi industry that is currently plagued by illegal competition. Current legislation is also seriously deficient in that taxi businesses cannot be licensed or easily be held accountable if they use unlicensed drivers or vehicles or if they provide poor services. Fare control and taximeter requirements are minimal, and complaints of overcharging are impossible to address when fares are not regulated. It is not enough to just ensure that there are enough immediate-hire taxis available at peak times and accessible taxis at any time. Lastly, customers in Belfast are frustrated and very often ignore the fact that, unlike everywhere else in Northern Ireland, most of the available taxis there cannot be hired immediately in the street. Clearly, we need new legislation that supports the development of a highly professional, customer-focused, economically sustainable taxi services industry. Implementing the proposals of the taxi review through the Taxis Bill will allow my Department to develop new policies designed to address the problems, using measures tailored to meet Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. The Taxis Bill will make it possible, for example, to promote road safety and the personal safety of taxi users by requiring all taxi operators to be licensed; reintroducing a taxi driving test; making all drivers get relevant training; and improving the identification that drivers must wear and display. It will also enable the availability, range and standard of services to be improved by giving powers to the DOE to operate a single licensing system throughout Northern Ireland that will allow all taxis to pick up passengers without a booking. It will also allow the Department to set compulsory maximum fare rates; require all taxis to have taximeters and display their fares clearly; and require taxi operators to provide more accessible taxis. That is why I am proposing that the Bill be given its Second Stage. Taxis are a small but integral part of our transport system. They often provide the key link at the start or end of a longer journey. Many people use them regularly to get to and from airports, bus and train stations or just to get home after a night out with friends or family. Taxis also provide vital community support, particularly in smaller towns and rural areas. Taxis often provide a lifeline for people who do not have access to a car or to good public transport. People with disabilities rely heavily on taxis to get around, and, every day during term time, taxis allow the education and library boards to provide excellent home-to-school transport services for over 3,000 children with special needs. Last but not least, taxis make a very important contribution to the economy and have a key role to play in promoting a positive image of Northern Ireland to our increasing numbers of tourists and business visitors. Clearly, there are times when most of us, for one reason or another, need to rely on the convenience of getting a taxi. When we do so, we want to be sure that we can get one when we need it, that we can travel safely and in comfort, and that the fare that we will be asked to pay will be reasonable, given the circumstances. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. I want to acknowledge that there is a great deal in the industry to be positive about. It is important to acknowledge that many people work very hard, often during unsociable hours, to provide safe, attentive, high-quality taxi services to their customers. Many taxi businesses across Northern Ireland invest heavily to provide excellent innovative taxi services, using the latest booking, dispatch and vehicle-tracking technology. Others are keen to develop new niche services in the growing wedding- and party-car sectors. However, there is a darker and less positive side to the taxi industry — where the personal safety of young people is put at risk when there are too few taxis to get them home quickly and safely late at night; where too many taxis look and feel as if they have seen better days; and where too many taxi drivers have poor customer-care skills. It is also one in which the only way that some people can get a taxi home at night is to agree to pay an extortionate fare. Most worryingly of all, it is one in which, because there is no local system of operator licensing, taxi businesses can get away with providing unsafe, uninsured, unlicensed cars and drivers, with relative impunity. All that must stop. That is why, starting with the Taxis Bill, I want to inroduce a programme of reform and modernisation to transform the provision of taxi services in Northern Ireland. I want to build on existing best practice and eliminate the worst practices. In particular, I am determined to clamp down on the menace of illegal taxiing, which does so much harm to the image of the industry and stops it from realising its full economic potential. My vision is simply this: I want to see that every taxi on the road is safe, driven by an insured, licensed taxi driver, and operated through a reputable business. The people of Northern Ireland, our tourists and our visitors deserve nothing less. For that reason, the Taxis Bill will allow me to introduce regulations to improve road safety by requiring new taxi drivers to be tested and all taxi drivers to be trained. Furthermore, the Bill will enable me to deter illegal taxiing and improve service standards by introducing operator licensing, and to protect consumers from overcharging by requiring all taxis to work to new maximum fares and to have taximeters. It will give the police and DOE enforcement officers new powers to tackle illegal taxiing, and it will introduce new offences against taxi regulations, with tough penalties. Those penalties will be directed at taxi businesses that provide a taxi service without a taxi-operator’s licence or that use unlicensed vehicles or drivers. Mr S Wilson: I note what the Minister has said about new powers and the ability for inspectors to ensure that taxi companies live up to the Bill’s requirements. It has been alleged that the legislation will lead to a vast bureaucracy of inspectors and paperwork, and so on. How would the Minister respond to that allegation? Mrs Foster: Compliance costs will be associated with the new regulations. The Department aims to increase its staffing significantly and to establish several new taxi enforcement teams throughout Northern Ireland to deal with the workload. That strategy will ensure that all areas have effective and proportional levels of enforcement. I accept what Mr Wilson has said about over-regulation, and I hope to touch on that point later in my speech. The Bill will allow my Department to introduce measures to improve the supply and range of taxi services provided. For example, measures will permit all taxis in Belfast to be hailed if they are available for hire. Furthermore, operators will be required to supply more disabled-accessible taxis, and taxis will be allowed to charge separate fares to passengers who wish to share. It is important to point out that, although the Taxis Bill is a necessary first step, not all its proposed changes will happen overnight. The Bill’s provisions are, in most cases, enabling. For example, full implementation of the taxi-reform programme, which the Bill makes possible, will require further subordinate legislation. As individual sets of regulations are introduced, they will be subject to policy scrutiny by the Committee for the Environment and to negative resolution before the Assembly. My Department will want to continue close consultation on those changes with taxi-service providers and users. I shall look briefly at the Bill’s main provisions. It contains six parts and three schedules. Part 1 introduces a requirement for a taxi operator to apply for, and obtain, a taxi-operator’s licence and imposes duties on licensed operators. It also introduces new requirements and duties for operating a taxi service at separate fares. Part 2 provides for the regulation of vehicles that are used to provide taxi services. It includes more flexible and extensive powers than those currently available to the Department to set appropriate suitability requirements for vehicles, including their type, size and design. Moreover, it gives the Department powers to set the maximum rates and fares that can be charged for the hire of a taxi, and powers to require all taxis to have a taximeter and a receipt printer. Part 3 contains provisions to regulate taxi drivers. In particular, it amends the existing legislation by reducing the length of time for which a driver’s licence is valid from five years to three. That measure brings the legislation into line with existing taxi-driver repute checks, which are repeated every three years. Part 4 contains several general provisions to do with licences. Those relate to the different forms of licence available under the Bill, and deal primarily with fees, applications, suspensions, revocations, curtailments and appeals. Part 5 makes provision for enforcement. It gives the police and the DOE powers to stop, search and seize vehicles that are believed to be taxiing illegally, and powers to inspect premises, under warrant, for which reasonable grounds exist to suspect that a person is operating an unlicensed taxi service. Part 6 outlines miscellaneous and general issues that apply to the operation of the Bill, including the sharing of information, making grants and providing training. The Bill has three schedules. Schedules 2 and 3, respectively, deal with minor and consequential amendments and repeals. Schedule 1 lists all the separate offences under the Bill and the penalties for each of those. The most serious licensing offences — all of which, on conviction, will attract a maximum fine of £5,000 — include driving a taxi without a taxi-driver’s licence; operating a taxi service without an operator’s licence, or using unlicensed vehicles or drivers; and using a taxi, or permitting a taxi to be used, without a taxi licence. 10.45 am I am happy to report that when the Department consulted on this legislation as an Order in Council in 2006, taxi businesses and customers broadly welcomed it. They want these changes to be brought in, especially in relation to operator licensing. I know, too, that the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland and the Inclusive Mobility Transport Advisory Committee (Imtac) are particularly supportive. I acknowledge, however, that not everyone is happy with everything that is in the Bill. I appreciate, in particular, that, although they support the vast majority of the measures that it will enable, many Belfast public-hire drivers are against proposals for all taxis to be allowed to pick up in the street. They want the existing two-tier public-hire and private-hire taxi-licensing system to be kept, but people who use taxis in Belfast appear to take a very different view. As I mentioned earlier, there are insufficient taxis in the city to meet demand at peak times, and the public are understandably frustrated that most of the available taxis cannot be hired immediately, simply because of this outdated two-tier system. Mr S Wilson: One of the criticisms that has been made of the Taxis Bill is that it will lead to redundancies in the taxi industry. This morning, in an interview on Radio Ulster, it was claimed that up to 450 taxi drivers could lose their jobs. Has any assessment been made of the impact that the legislation will have on employment in the taxi industry? If there were to be redundancies, which provision in the Bill would be the source of those? Mrs Foster: Frankly, I cannot see how the legislation will lead to redundancies, especially as there is an increased demand for taxis in the city of Belfast. In fact, it will free up more taxis to deal with the demand. My Department does not believe that the proposals for a single-tier system will result in the loss of taxi drivers’ jobs in Belfast. Accessible taxis, such as those operated by Belfast public hire, will continue to play an important role in operating immediate-hire services from taxi ranks at popular locations in the city and at places such as Belfast City Airport, railway stations, bus stations and ferry terminals. Accessible taxis will continue to serve as school- and health-transport contract vehicles and will have the opportunity to participate in taxi-sharing and other schemes that are envisaged under the provisions in the Bill. Measures will be put in place to safeguard the business of accessible taxis operating from taxi ranks in order to discourage casual picking up by non-accessible taxis in the vicinity of those locations. Another source of concern for taxi operators and drivers is enforcement. The matter was raised earlier by my hon Friend the Member for East Antrim. Any regulatory regime is only as good as its enforcement. I agree with the taxi industry and other stakeholders that effective enforcement is vital if standards are to be raised and illegality driven out. The Taxis Bill provides the powers, with details of offences and penalties, that my Department and the police need to deter illegal taxiing. It is now beholden to us to do our part to ensure that we have the right strategies and resources in place to make the new licensing system work. I appreciate also that many taxi businesses are worried that their costs may rise as a result of the regulatory charges that I propose. The Bill, in itself, will not affect business costs, and I want to reassure any taxi drivers and operators who are concerned about compliance costs that may flow from the reform programme that the Department will carefully assess all the costs and benefits of the changes and consult fully with them about any potential regulatory impacts. Measures in the Bill are expected to have a positive impact on the equality of opportunity of both taxi-service providers and users. That is particularly so in the case of people with disabilities and older people, who can expect to benefit from the provision of more services, using vehicles suited to their needs. It is also judged that implementing the Bill will have a positive impact in rural areas, as people living and working there should benefit from the wider provision of high-quality and more accessible taxi services, including, potentially, access to more shared taxi services. Finally, I want to comment on the commencement of the Taxis Bill. Clause 39 addresses a deficiency in existing legislation by giving the police and the Department of the Environment’s enforcement officers specific powers to stop private cars that are believed to be taxiing illegally. That clause can come into operation shortly after the Bill becomes law. As initiatives are developed, regulations that flow from other provisions will be implemented over a number of years. Early priorities will include the introduction of taxi-operator licensing, and new training and testing requirements for drivers. Moreover, the standards that taxi vehicles must meet will be revised, new maximum-fare rates will be set and taximeters will be made compulsory. Mr Speaker: Before I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I must remind Members that, as this is the Second Stage of the Bill, they should speak only to the principles of the Bill and not to its substance. Moreover, there is no time limit on this debate. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment (Mr McGlone): I thank the Minister for giving the Bill its Second Stage. As Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, I welcome the opportunity to initiate discussion on the Taxis Bill. This comprehensive Bill consists of 58 clauses that will make provisions to regulate taxi operators, taxis and taxi drivers. I pay tribute to those taxi drivers who provide such a vital service in our community. At present, four different types of taxi licence are in operation: vehicles licensed as private hire; taxis licensed as Belfast public hire; taxis licensed as restricted public hire; and taxibuses. Many people may not know that or know the type of work that each can and cannot do, but the Bill will address that. It will also ensure that taxi operators become regulated, which they are not at present. The Bill is a response to dissatisfaction among consumer organisations, the industry itself and the general public over the provision of taxi services under existing legislation. It is clear from the Department-commissioned ‘Quantitative Survey of Northern Ireland Taxi Operators 2004’ that taxiing is a major industry. There are currently about 17,000 licensed taxi drivers, 10,500 licensed taxis and 850 taxi operators in Northern Ireland. The industry itself has an approximate turnover of £70 million per annum. Overcharging is one current problem for the taxi industry. My colleague Alasdair McDonnell has informed me that one of his constituents complained to him that, because he uses an electric wheelchair, he must pay a premium of £8 minimum to get a wheelchair taxi in Belfast. In Lisburn, however, his constituent said that the equivalent fare was £2, or the normal standard rate. For there to be such a large disparity is wrong, and the issue must be addressed at both departmental and Committee level. There are also concerns about low standards of customer service, a lack of taxis at peak times and, of course, illegal taxiing. The Department anticipates that the Bill will tackle those problems by making the industry more professional, by introducing tougher enforcement powers and by providing better standards for taxi users. The Taxis Bill will lead to the regulation of taxi operators. As I mentioned earlier, they are not subject to any specific regulation. The Bill will require that anyone who operates any type of taxi must hold a taxi-operator licence. That is a positive step, which should help to combat illegal taxiing. Good repute is an important element for the Department to consider when granting operator licences. It is also notable that the Bill will impose a maximum fine of £5,000 on any operator who does not use licensed taxis and drivers. The Committee will scrutinise proposals in the Bill as to how that will be done. The Bill will also address the taxi-licensing structure. The Department will be given flexibility to introduce a one-tier system, to which the Minister referred earlier. The current two-tier system is not working, as is demonstrated by the number of people who can be seen attempting to flag down taxis in Belfast city centre after a night out. The legislation will ensure that all taxis can do both public- and private-hire work, while remaining flexible enough to allow the Department to make other arrangements if particular systems are found to suit particular areas better. The Committee will examine the legislative proposals very closely. The Bill will address taxi-driver licensing. A taxi driver must still have a taxi-driver’s licence, but power will be available to ensure that some, or all, taxi drivers undergo testing and training. That can only help to improve customer-service standards. However, Committee members are concerned that that could lead to an influx of people applying for licences before the legislation comes into effect. The Committee will be exploring that matter further during its deliberations at Committee Stage. The Bill provides for extensive enforcement powers. Police and enforcement officers will be permitted to enter and inspect operating centres; to stop and examine licensed taxis; and to seize and remove a vehicle that they suspect is being used without a proper licence. Although the Committee welcomes the introduction of such stringent powers, its members are concerned that the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) has such a small staff — 21 people — to call on to enforce those powers. That is another issue that the Committee must explore further. It is to be welcomed that the Department consulted substantially on the Bill with key stakeholders. Two rounds of consultation were held, in 2005 and 2006, and those drew almost 400 written responses, the majority of which were in favour of the proposals. However, a few areas of concern were raised. Those concerns included the standards for accessible taxis; the requirement for taxi drivers to wear seatbelts; lack of financial support for training; and lack of detail in the Bill. The Committee is soon to place a public notice in the main morning newspapers calling for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals. We will be extremely interested to hear their views on the Bill. Like Mr Sammy Wilson, I listened to the radio this morning, and I hope that people with genuine concerns about the Bill will avail themselves of the opportunity to present their concerns to the Committee. As Committee Chairman, I assure them that they will be given a genuine hearing. In Committee, we will be studying the Bill clause by clause. After we have taken into account stakeholders’ views, the Committee will produce a report that outlines its views on the Bill. In general terms, the Bill seeks to increase regulation of the taxi industry, and, on behalf of the Committee, I support its principles. Mr Weir: I welcome the proposals. Like other members of the Committee for the Environment, I look forward to getting my teeth into the Bill. Two of the first three Bills that were introduced this session — the Budget Bill and the Welfare Reform Bill — required accelerated passage, but the Committee welcomes the opportunity to look in detail at the Taxis Bill. As the Minister and the Committee Chairman have indicated, the Bill covers a wide range of issues and contains many clauses. The Committee will want to ensure that the very good objectives that are set out in the Bill will be mirrored in the detail of the legislation. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) It is appropriate to remind ourselves of the Bill’s aims. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the legislation came about as a result of the review of taxi regulation that was carried out in 2002. The objective of that review, which is also the underlying objective of the Taxis Bill, was to: “make recommendations aimed at creating a more effective and equitable regulatory framework that would promote road and personal safety, improve accessibility and facilitate fair competition in the taxi industry.” It is important to put that on the record at the start, because I am concerned that some Members will seek to misrepresent the Bill. The Minister and others have acknowledged that the legislation is not an attack on the taxi industry. Everyone would acknowledge that the taxi industry provides a valuable service. It provides mobility for people in the countryside who do not have the same access to public transport as some of the rest of us do. It also helps those who are vulnerable because of physical or financial problems and who do not have access to a car or, in many cases, cannot afford a car. It is also the case that the taxi industry provides a vital service for road safety. Many worthy campaigns have been launched, particularly by the DOE, to encourage people not to drink and drive. However, those campaigns can only be effective if an alternative method is available for people to get home after a night out. Taxis provide that alternative and a greater level of road safety by playing an important role in cutting road deaths. 11.00 am It is recognised that the majority of taxi businesses and taxi drivers operate in a responsible, efficient and effective manner. However, the aim of the Bill is to ensure that all of the industry is operating to the same high standards that are evident in many parts of Northern Ireland, and it is worthy that we are seeking to ensure that the same level of excellence is being provided across the system. Unfortunately, the majority of taxi drivers face major problems because of the actions of a small number of illegal drivers who create problems for other drivers and for consumers. Consumers want to be assured that certain standards will be met. They want to be sure that drivers and operators are licensed; that taxis will be clean and of an appropriate standard; and that drivers will have been trained to provide good service. It is particularly important to ensure that consumers are protected. The provision in the Bill to allow regulations to be made to set maximum fares will be a useful device to ensure that the small number of taxi drivers who seek to exploit people will face the proper sanctions. It is important that people feel safe when they get into a taxi. A properly regulated industry is vital in order to provide people with peace of mind — not just for the taxi user but for the parents of young people who use taxis. It will assure them that when their son or daughter goes out for an evening, there is a guarantee of their protection on the way home. The Committee will be going through the Bill in more detail; therefore, I do not wish to do so at present. It is sufficient to say that the provisions in the Bill relating to the regulation of taxi operators, taxis and licensing arrangements will provide the three legs of the stool that will form the sound base for the industry. I welcome provisions that will ensure that more taxis will be designed to meet the needs of older people and disabled people. It is important that the Taxis Bill is not considered to be a one-off piece of legislation. As the Minister said, subsequent regulations will put the meat on the bones of some of the issues. There will be much focus on consumer protection and on ensuring that people have adequate opportunities to use taxis. At present, the concern, particularly in certain parts of Belfast, is that customers must wait too long for a taxi because there are too few available. It is important to have a level playing field in the industry — that would ensure that legal taxi drivers would not be disadvantaged by those who are operating illegally. It is important that there is one system and set of standards across Northern Ireland in order to prevent the situation in which some taxi drivers have an unfair advantage while others are unfairly disadvantaged. In the long run, the Bill’s provisions will lead to an expansion of the taxi market, which is a relatively rare outcome in the regulation of any industry. If the taxi industry is regulated properly, it will lead to more people being employed in it. That is something to be strongly welcomed. As well as providing protection for the consumer — obviously, the number-one aim — the legislation will be of benefit to the taxi industry: it will provide a level of protection to those taxi drivers who provide a first-class service. I look forward to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill, so that Members can ensure that the policy objectives that have been welcomed across the Chamber are matched in the detail of the legislation. I believe that they will. I urge the House to support the Bill’s Second Stage. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister, and I thank my fellow Committee members for their comments. I also look forward to the rest of the debate. Sinn Féin welcomes the Bill. The regulation of owners and drivers is long overdue — as the industry will admit — and the general principle of the Bill is welcomed. There has been widespread consultation dating back to 2002; however, some issues need to be clarified, and I welcome the opportunity to do so at the Bill’s Committee Stage. It is imperative that the Assembly encourage engagement with the major stakeholders in the taxi industry — taxi drivers, taxi owners and their representatives — to listen to their views and concerns. They will be the people most affected by the legislation, and it is important that their voices be heard. I am also concerned about the enforcement of the regulations, which must be implemented more thoroughly than at present. More resources must be put into that area or the new regulations will die on their feet. It will be a case of everything changing yet remaining the same if the new rules are implemented but the old problems are not eradicated. Members must give great consideration to the proposed change, in certain circumstances, from a two-tier to a one-tier system. Wider consultation on that area is required with all interested parties, because it raises many questions that Members alone cannot answer. One must remember that, as well as the benefits that it will bring to road and personal safety and the contribution that it will make to a more efficient and modern taxi service, the Bill touches on the livelihoods of thousands of people. They must be permitted to have a meaningful input, and Members must be prepared to listen. Sinn Féin welcomes the Bill, and the next step must be to allow stakeholders to put their case to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Armstrong: I support the Second Stage of the Taxis Bill and its general principles. It is designed to help with regulation of the taxi industry in Northern Ireland and to ensure public confidence in its safety. The taxi industry affects a large number of people across Northern Ireland, and it is represented in urban and rural districts. I was encouraged to learn from the Department that the majority of the taxi industry is supportive of the proposals and wants the legislation to be in place sooner rather than later. I do not propose to engage in a detailed examination of the Bill — I am sure that others will have that opportunity and will raise their concerns at a later date. Rather, I will comment on two areas that are of concern to me. First, I am keen to ensure that there is a greater taxi-rank provision, especially in rural towns. I am aware that the provision of taxi ranks is a traffic- management matter, which falls under the remit of the Department for Regional Development’s Roads Service, so I am pleased to hear that the Department of the Environment taxi review team has already made strong representation to the Department for Regional Development (DRD) about the provision of taxi ranks, and I encourage DRD to take those concerns on board. As a representative of a rural constituency — Mid Ulster — I am particularly aware that the subregional transport plan has recognised that planners of rural towns must look critically at the provision of taxi ranks. I encourage them to do so as a matter of urgency. Secondly, I want to ensure that members of the travelling public are able to identify legitimate taxis. Under the current system, taxi plates are not that visible. Mr Weir: Mr Armstrong said that the public must be able to identify legitimate taxis — and I am sure that all Members would welcome that. Is he aware of any instances of people getting into cars, believing them to be taxis, when, in fact, they were not? Mr Armstrong: I missed the Member’s last words, but I am sure that he had good reason for his intervention. [Laughter.] I want to ensure that members of the public are able to identify legitimate taxis. The current taxi plates are not sufficiently visible, and one must focus below eye level to read them. I would support any moves by the Department to integrate taxi plates into roof signs to ensure that that information is readily identifiable. That would advantage the public in safety and ease of use. We need a taxi service that is safe and efficient, not only for local people but for prospective tourists. Mr Ford: Perhaps Members can reach unanimity on this matter. I would like to congratulate the Minister on the Second Stage of the Bill. It is clear that legislation is required. The reputation of good taxi operators is currently suffering from the activities of those who operate on the margins or, in some cases, downright illegally. It is time to deal with that. The Minister and others have referred to the fact that a review began in November 2002. However, in fact, there was ongoing activity before that. I was a member of the Environment Committee during the Assembly’s first mandate and I remember having received delegations from those who were concerned about this matter, even before suspension in October 2002. It is, to some extent, regrettable that the legislation was almost ready for an Order in Council to be made last year, yet we are still waiting for legislation to pass. Indeed, the Minister has told us that we must wait for further subordinate legislation in a number of detailed areas. How long can we afford to delay if we are to ensure the proper level of consumer protection, which is undoubtedly deserved? Mr Weir and Mr Boylan said that they were looking forward to the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. I am reminded of the fact that Mr Weir was not a member of the previous Environment Committee. Indeed, neither the Minister nor Mr Boylan were Members of the Assembly when we last discussed taxis. I suspect that, after a few weeks of consideration of the details of taxi matters, Mr Weir and Mr Boylan may be marginally less enthusiastic than they are today. We shall wait and see. I look forward to hearing about the details that they will wish to raise when the Bill reaches Consideration Stage. I look forward to their showing how they have applied themselves to the Committee’s work. They clearly have an interesting example to set for all of us. The key point must be that the people of Northern Ireland and, as the Minister said, our visitors can depend on safe, roadworthy vehicles that are driven by qualified licensed drivers and operated by registered companies with regulated fares. It will take some time before that comes about, but that must be the ambition towards which we all work. I have some concerns, which we will doubtless have the opportunity to address as Mr Weir guides us through the Committee Stage. Those concerns include: provisions for people with disabilities, and the speed with which those provisions will be introduced; the requirements for regulation and inspection, and the numbers of staff who will be made available to do that; and the timescale for the provision of taximeters and receipt printers. Those issues must be resolved as we consider the Bill in detail and as we deal with the ensuing subordinate legislation, which will doubtless provide the Committee’s excitement for many weeks and months ahead. However, the fundamental principles of the Bill are sound. There must be licensing of operators — that is a key provision to ensure that good operators and good drivers are protected from the rogues. We must ensure better training and regulation of drivers; we must ensure action on enforcement; and we must ensure control of fares. It is clear from the consultation that most people in the industry support every part of the Bill, or, if not every part, the great majority of it. It is clear that, as we work through the enabling subordinate legislation, we will be able to deal with the outstanding matters. The Committee has been threatened with much of that work. Despite that, I welcome the Bill. 11.15 am Mr I McCrea: I support the Second Stage of the Bill, and I thank the Minister for her introductory comments. As the Minister stated earlier, the Bill will bring taxi legislation — and the taxi industry — into the twenty-first century. It gives the Department the ability and authority to bring much-needed changes to that industry. Importantly, the introduction of the one-tier system will make for greater availability of taxis, especially in Belfast. The Bill will also ensure that taxi drivers will be better trained: all new drivers will be required to pass taxi-driving tests, thus improving the safety of passengers. Recently, it was suggested that the Bill will create a new confidence in the taxi industry that will lead to further investment and create jobs, placing the industry firmly in the mainstream economy. That is the intention of the Bill and of the Department. Earlier in the debate, taxi drivers’ overcharging of disabled people was mentioned. The requirement for all taxis to have a taximeter will ensure that such overcharging will no longer occur. Disability access is important. I ask the Minister to advise the House on how the Bill will improve disabled people’s access to taxis. As has already been said, everyone’s views will be taken into account when the Bill reaches its Committee Stage. I am unsure whether I will be as enthusiastic a contributor as some other Members at that Stage, given that scrutiny of the Bill will be a long and rigorous process. Nevertheless, I look forward to it. Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest in proceedings: a member of my family works in the taxi industry. Tugann Sinn Féin tacaíocht do Bhille na dTacsaithe. As Cathal Boylan stated, Sinn Féin broadly supports the Taxis Bill. I acknowledge the work that has been carried out by the Minister’s officials, and I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill in the manner in which she did. The rationale behind the Bill is the creation of efficient and effective regulation of the taxi industry in the interests of drivers, owners and — most importantly — the travelling public. It is widely accepted that the legislation that currently governs the industry is inefficient and ineffective. The industry has been a prime mover in calling for, and co-operating in, the framing of the Bill. Coming as I do from Derry, I have been in contact with the North-West Taxi Forum, which believes that the Bill, if passed, will go a long way to improving regulation of the industry and to creating a level playing field. Too many of those who are involved in the industry work for the minimum wage or work in excess of 60 hours a week. They accept that there may be an increase in the fare structure but that a proper, professional and efficient service and, indeed, greater public confidence, will compensate for that. Therefore with those broad themes in mind, Sinn Féin supports the Bill at Second Stage. Some aspects of the Bill require greater explanation and scrutiny, and that can be done at Committee Stage. Some areas of concern have already been mentioned, such as existing taxi-service provision in rural areas, current provision in Belfast city centre, and the introduction of a licence for taxi drivers. Committee Stage will allow time for greater clarity and definition and will allow those working in the industry to have further input before the Bill is enacted. I welcome the fact that Patsy McGlone has invited stakeholders to give evidence to the Committee for the Environment. I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to its Second Stage, and once more I acknowledge the work of her officials. Táimid ag dúil leis an Bhille a theacht os comhair an Choiste. Lord Browne: I support this timely Bill, and I thank my hon Friend the Minister for bringing it to its Second Stage. The Bill should help to revitalise the experience that people have when using a taxi service. All too often, we hear — especially on the biggest radio show in the country — of the horror stories experienced by some who use taxi services. We hear repeatedly of the frustration of taxi drivers who provide a decent professional service, but who are constantly let down by their few, but if encountered, memorable and less-than-reputable colleagues. In fact, I probably would not have spoken on the Bill had it not been for a concerned constituent whom I met while canvassing in March who yearned for a level playing field, or at least a decent mechanism to deal appropriately with the small band of drivers who, in his view, give the rest of his profession a bad name. We have all heard about taxi drivers who agree extremely inflated fixed prices with their passengers. That normally occurs late at night, and often when the passengers are tired and — Mr S Wilson: Emotional. [Laughter.] Lord Browne: Yes, emotional. Indeed, they have little or no alternative but to accept such charges. In some cases, people going in the same general directions are often taken together in the same taxi, but all separately pay the same full price. Therefore, I welcome the provision in clause 16 that will allow for a maximum fare to be set. Although I note that, at this stage, the provision simply allows regulations to be introduced, I trust that the Minister will move quickly to introduce such protection for consumers when the Bill is enacted. Similarly, I note that clause 16(2) provides for the ability to charge passengers who are travelling in the same direction separate fares. It is crucial that the Department introduce stringent guidelines to ensure that value-for-money service is paramount and that passengers’ interests remain a high priority. For example, charging four people travelling in the same direction a fare of £10 each would not provide value for money if a group of four could travel the same distance for £10 between them. The ability to carry separate paying passengers must be accompanied by a comparable reduction in individual charges. Although I welcome the introduction of taximeters for all taxis, there must be continual enforcement by departmental staff. There would be no point in adopting a metered service if, during the hours of darkness, drivers prey on the vulnerable and those who simply want to get home safely and quickly by charging whatever they like, regardless of what the meter shows — or what it might have shown had it been switched on. I have been told that there are only five enforcement officers, and that figure may be wrong, and that they tend to focus on taxis in and around Belfast. If that is the case, that number is patently not enough to ensure that passengers are receiving the highest possible service across the Province. The Bill provides for regulation of the taxi industry, not for regulation’s sake, but in order to create a reliable, professional and safe service in which the public can have confidence. Taxi drivers provide a vital service to tourists and the tourism economy. They act as guides and information centres to those who are unfamiliar with our towns and cities. As far as the PSNI is concerned, taxis quickly ferry people away from hot spots after closing time. Taxis often provide a much-needed social service for the elderly or infirm. Often, taxi drivers go far beyond the call of duty. They collect groceries, and are especially helpful to the elderly. They help passengers to their destinations, and often wait until they return. Despite the headlines surrounding the Bill, it is an important step forward. Honest, hard-working, professional drivers will have nothing to fear from its implementation. I support the Bill. Mr O’Loan: I fully support the principle of the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. I want to make two small points about the explanatory and financial memorandum that accompanies the Bill. First, in commenting on the consultation responses, the memorandum says that, taken as a whole, the proposals were welcomed. Some consultation responses expressed a level of dissent with the Bill’s intention. Therefore, during their consideration of the Bill, it would be helpful to Members if some reference could be made to consultees’ opinions. Paragraph 13 of the explanatory and financial memorandum states: “Enacting this enabling legislation will have no financial implications other than in relation to the enforcement and prosecution of offences.” The Minister referred to that provision in her opening statement. The Bill will create a regulatory regime that will cost money to run. That sentence from the explanatory and financial memorandum surprises me, so I seek clarification from the Minister. In particular, will she confirm that the Bill will create a self-financing regulatory regime, meaning that the charges that operators pay will cover the regime’s costs? Mr Shannon: I welcome the Taxis Bill. It is important to have appropriate and effective legislation, and the Second Stage of the Taxis Bill is a step in the right direction to achieving that. In my constituency, there are approximately 100 full-time and part-time taxi drivers, who deliver an effective service to the community. I wish to make three points on passenger safety. First, it is critical that passengers feel safe in taxis. Therefore it is important that the legislation ensures that rogue taxi drivers cannot let on to be legitimate taxi drivers. In the past few months, we have seen some changes that have improved that situation. Secondly, it is good that the Taxis Bill requires that all taxi operators, drivers and vehicles be insured. My third point relates to taxi fares, which some Members have mentioned. Contrary to the political programme that we see on TV each week, in which the taxi driver always says at the end, “That’ll be £12·50, please”, we must take fare regulation a wee bit further. Regardless of whether a journey is to the end of a driveway, to east Belfast or down to Newtownards, the fare will not always be £12·50. Therefore we must ensure that a fare structure is in place and that everything is correct. The Minister stated that, during the far-reaching consultation process, a large number of people was contacted and a fair number of responses was received. Although I welcome the Second Stage of the Taxis Bill, will the Minister state whether the replies that were received from taxi associations showed that they are satisfied that the new legislation is correct, and, rather than inhibiting their businesses, will strengthen and enhance them? Mrs Foster: I am grateful for Members’ contributions to the debate. It has been a valuable discussion, and it has been useful for me to hear Members’ views. I will respond to some of the issues that have been raised, and I will read Hansard to ensure that I have not missed any points. If I find that I have, I will write to those Members concerned. The Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, Mr Patsy McGlone, started the debate by referring to several issues, including overcharging. He mentioned his colleague from South Belfast, who is concerned about wheelchair users who are expected to pay a premium when hiring taxis. Regulations will allow the Department to introduce a scheme whereby operators will be required to charge the same fares to all users, so premiums for disabled users will not be permitted. That is an important point to make, because we have heard much anecdotal evidence about overcharging. Mr McGlone mentioned concerns about the possible rise in applications for taxi-driver licences before the Taxis Bill becomes law. In most years since 2004-05, applications for taxi-driver licences have increased by approximately 20%. I have no doubt that that trend is influenced partly by applicants who want to enter the industry before the rules change. However, the Taxis Bill contains powers relating to taxi-driver training and testing that could be applied to both new and existing drivers. If appropriate, the Department could require more recent entrants to meet the same requirements as new drivers. The Member and the Committee might wish to discuss that with me and with my officials. 11.30 am My colleague Peter Weir welcomed the opportunity to examine the issues in detail in Committee — raising some scepticism among Members who have been here for some time about the enjoyability of that. However, he also mentioned the role that taxi services can play in road safety, particularly in the campaign against drinking and driving. That was a good, and timely, point, given that, unfortunately, our road-death figures are creeping up again. As he said, the Bill is about driving up standards and, rather than being one piece of legislation, is part of a continuing reform package and betterment programme. Mr Boylan, the Deputy Chairperson of the Environment Committee, broadly welcomed the proposals in the Bill on behalf of his party, Sinn Féin. He said that taxi drivers would be most affected by the changes. Although I acknowledge that the Bill will have a significant impact on taxi drivers, I hope that it will be those consumers who use taxis who will notice most what it tries to achieve. Mr Boylan also said that he hoped that the Committee would have a wider consultation and discussion on the change from a two-tier to a single-tier system of regulation. That change is a fundamental tenet of the Bill. I note that Sinn Féin did not respond to that point during the initial consultation and, to date, has not raised the issue in Committee. However, if the Member feels the need to raise it in Committee, it will be discussed further. However, as I said, the proposed change is fundamental to the Bill, and the Department is keen to proceed with it. Mr Armstrong from Mid Ulster made two points. He acknowledged that his first on greater taxi-rank provision in rural areas, is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. I look forward to the publication, in due course, of that Department’s subregional transport plan, which, I understand, will address the issue of taxi ranks in provincial towns. Secondly, he mentioned the importance of being able to identify licensed taxis quickly. The use of taxi licence plates will continue to identify taxis, and the Bill contains powers that will enable the Department to prescribe the format and display of the plates relating to the class of taxi and the type of service that it can provide. Roof signs will continue to be used on all taxis, and the Department is looking at the possibility of integrating taxi plates into the roof signs to improve identification and to protect the safety of taxi users. That is an important point. David Ford, on behalf of the Alliance Party, said that legislation was needed. He was concerned about the delay in the introduction of regulations, particularly for consumers and those with disabilities. I acknowledge that the provisions of the Bill will be commenced at different times. However, many of the provisions require detailed regulation, and the Environment Committee will need time to consider them. The industry and taxi users must also be consulted, and, unfortunately, that takes time. However, it is only right that the legislation go through that process. The introduction of operator licensing, together with enforcement powers, will be the Department’s priority as soon as the Bill is passed. Ian McCrea hoped that one of the spin-offs from this legislation would be renewed confidence in the taxi system. I hope that that will be the case. He also asked how the Bill would improve the accessibility of taxis to people with disabilities. We hope that the Bill will increase the number of accessible taxis and improve their availability and suitability. We aim to do that by requiring taxi operators to ensure that accessible vehicles account for a certain percentage of their fleet; by allowing only accessible taxis to stand for hire at taxi ranks at designated places such as airports, rail stations and bus stations; and by prescribing revised vehicle standards for accessible taxis. The Member for Foyle Mr McCartney acknowledged the work that has been carried out by officials in my Department. I, too, put on record my appreciation of the work that the taxi review team has done in introducing such a comprehensive Bill. Mentioning his consultation with the North-West Taxi Forum, Mr McCartney asked about the impact of the legislation on taxi services in rural areas. I believe that the impact will be positive; as he will understand, I am keen to ensure that that is the case. People who live and work in rural areas will benefit from the wider, higher- quality provision. It is important to ensure that more accessible taxi services are provided in rural areas. Although people sometimes get the mistaken idea that taxis are a city phenomenon, people in rural areas also avail themselves of them a great deal. Lord Browne of Belmont said that the Bill was timely and would tackle those less-than-reputable taxi drivers who take advantage of people who are very tired on nights out and who want to get home. He also mentioned his concern that it was important that the issue of separate fares be properly regulated. I thank him for being the only Member to refer to a provision in the Bill — as a legal person, I always like to hear that. He mentioned clause 16(2). That took me back, Wallace. Separate fares will be regulated at lower than the maximum fare, and it is important that those fares will be monitored under the Bill. Wallace Browne also mentioned the concern about people being charged inflated fares off the meter. We share that concern. We hope that the penalty for failure to start the meter or for charging more than the regulated fare — it will attract a maximum fine on conviction of £1,000 — will bring such practices to an end. Declan O’Loan asked for an assurance that the Department had had regard to objections that were received during the consultation period. The Department very much took into account all the consultation responses — indeed, officials went out of their way to visit some of the provincial towns to hear what people on the ground had to say about taxi services — and some proposals were modified to reflect the objections that were received. For example, the need to retain roof signs was brought to our attention, and that is why the requirement for roof signs will continue. On the issue of costing, Mr O’Loan asked why the explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill will not involve any costs. As a piece of enabling legislation, the Bill will not, in and of itself, attract any costs; the costs will be attracted by the regulatory regime. Each piece of subordinate legislation and each set of regulations will go before the Environment Committee and will also be subject to a regulatory impact assessment. It is important to bear that in mind. Finally, Jim Shannon mentioned the cost of fares and said that he would be concerned — or perhaps unconcerned — that the taxi driver on ‘Hearts and Minds’ could not charge £12·50. We might see a change there, but I do not think that we will be too sorry about that. However, I am confident that the Bill will address the issues that were raised in the consultation responses, and I am happy that we have taken those issues on board. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and for the questions that they have raised. I am confident that the Taxis Bill will enable Northern Ireland to develop the necessary taxi policies to tackle illegal taxiing, to improve road safety and to provide better-quality services for all taxi users. My officials and I look forward to working closely with the Committee for the Environment as it scrutinises the Bill. Although some Members have been sceptical about that scrutiny, I have no doubt that it will be valuable. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of the Taxis Bill [NIA 4/07] be agreed. Marshalled List of Amendments Mr Deputy Speaker: Before we move to private Members’ business, I wish to inform Members that it has been necessary to issue a corrigendum to the Marshalled List of Amendments. Copies of the corrigendum have been placed in the Rotunda and in Members’ pigeonholes. The amendment affected is that selected for the motion on the transformation fund. Members should, therefore, have ample time to consider the new information before that debate begins. Pay Parity for Further Education Lecturers Mr Deputy Speaker: This item was postponed at the sitting on Monday 18 June 2007, because we ran out of time. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and has been published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Mr Butler: I beg to move That this Assembly supports the campaign of further education lecturers for pay parity with teachers in schools; and calls for an end to further education lecturers’ pay levels being decided by the Government’s public sector pay policy. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Maidir leis an rún seo, tá súil agam go dtacóidh an Tionól le feachtas léachtóirí breisoideachais i ndiaidh na díospóireachta. This motion concerns our supporting further education lecturers in their campaign for pay parity with schoolteachers. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, and I hope that today’s debate will help to resolve the issue. Despite many negotiations with unions and employers, this lecturers’ dispute over pay has lasted several years, and it has still not been resolved. Unless the dispute is resolved quickly, industrial action could escalate, and the running of our further education colleges could be disrupted. There have been significant and far-reaching changes in the further education sector. However, if this dispute is not resolved, it will have an impact on lecturers’ morale and on the delivery of a first-class education system. I recently attended an event at Belfast City Hall to celebrate a century of further education here. In that time, tens of thousands of people have left classrooms and examination halls the length and breadth of this country and have gone on to make important contributions to economic growth here. None of that would have been possible without the dedication and professionalism of the teaching staff in local further education colleges. The further education sector is now recognised by Government as being key to the delivery of a thriving, first-class, buoyant economy. From 1 August 2007, the 16 existing further education colleges will merge to form six new area-based colleges. Those colleges will play an important role in supporting economic and social life here. They will have multimillion-pound budgets and cutting-edge facilities in order to accommodate the skills and training that are necessary to deliver a first-class economy. Further education colleges are at the heart of lifelong learning. They play a vital role in strengthening economic development, enhancing social cohesion and advancing individual skills and learning. 11.45 am Further education colleges also provide a second opportunity for education for many citizens. They encourage those who are unemployed, socially excluded or disadvantaged back into the education system. The continual excellence and achievements by further education colleges cannot be sustained against the backdrop of the ongoing industrial dispute. The continuation of the dispute will damage our important education sector. Good lecturing staff are already leaving the sector, while more highly-experienced teachers may not join it. Staff from the industrial and business sectors, who are well qualified and traditionally go into the further education sector, will be dissuaded to do so in future if it is characterised by poor industrial relations. In considering the history and record of the further education sector, I hope that all Members will support the demand for pay parity by college lecturers and that the Executive will take action to settle the dispute. Central to the dispute is the fact that the British Treasury and its public-sector pay policy control pay increases for college lecturers. That policy prevents lecturers from being paid on a similar pay scale to teachers. Lecturers are becoming increasingly alienated because of the dispute, and this is happening at the very time that the further education sector faces massive restructuring and needs the goodwill of lecturers. I am sure that all Members want college lecturers to secure their due entitlements, career structure and financial remuneration. Lecturers want more than sympathy from Ministers and the Assembly. They want a fair and just settlement to the pay dispute. There is increasing recognition of the important role that further education performs in delivering a broad and balanced education curriculum. The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) does appreciate the lecturers and teachers who deliver that education. However, there must be an effort, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), to come up with a solution to the long-running dispute. We need to move decisively to find a lasting settlement. It is important to state the background to the dispute and how college lecturers are being unfairly treated in comparison with their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales. The Welsh Assembly has already agreed pay parity for further education lecturers and schoolteachers in Wales. Lecturers in England and Scotland are outside the Treasury’s public-sector pay policy. Only lecturers here have their pay arrangements subject to the public-sector pay policy. The Department for Employment and Learning made a submission in support of pay parity to the public-sector pay committee at Westminster in February 2007, which was supported by Peter Hain, Maria Eagle and David Hanson. However, the committee rejected the submission and suggested that teachers here take a cut in their wages that would bring everyone down to the same level. An independent inquiry into the pay of lecturers compared with that of teachers in other sectors was carried out in 2000 and produced the Horisk Report. It found that the earnings potential for lecturers was significantly below that of teachers in the schools sector and that teachers had a significantly greater opportunity for promotion, management roles and allowances. The Horisk Report recommended action to address those differentials. The current situation in which all salary costs are governed by the Treasury’s public-sector pay policy should be ended. The Executive should push for that and for the Department for Employment and Learning, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel, to decide pay scales for the further education lecturers. The dispute is not about a lack of finances, which the Minister for Employment and Learning has already made clear. The obstacle to a settlement is securing a political decision that justifies pay for further education lecturers here being outside Treasury guidelines. The needs of the Treasury in London are dictating how this group of workers is treated — indeed, mistreated. Lecturers are being punished for no reason other than that their reasonable demands are not suited to the needs of the British Treasury. The Assembly and the Executive must assert their independence from policies set by the Treasury in this case. It is another example in which the needs of the people who live here are being filtered through the needs of the British Treasury. A few weeks ago, there was a demand for lower corporation tax to bring it in line with corporation tax in the South. The Treasury rejected — Mr Shannon: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Go ahead. Mr Shannon: Does the Member agree with me that the salary of lecturers has dropped below the wage of other teachers? Is the Member also aware that some lecturers are actually getting lower wages than the three-year apprentices who attend the classes in which they lecture? Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that information, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. Lecturers should be treated with equality and should be given the highest pay available in the sector — that is at the heart of this debate. The Assembly and the Executive must resolve this matter to the satisfaction of our college lecturers. Economic dependence and the ability of the Assembly and the Executive to raise their own money and decide their own financial and fiscal policies in the interests of our citizens and not to the dictates of the Treasury in London are at the very heart of this dispute. Go raibh maith agat. Mr B McCrea: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “schools” and insert “; notes that Further Education lecturers’ pay is currently restricted by HM Treasury’s public sector pay policy; and urges the Executive, in light of this constraint, to secure urgently a mechanism to achieve pay parity.” I am happy to support the motion and to propose the amendment. It is important to stress from the outset that all Members fully support the excellent work of further education lecturers, and we support their claims. It is strange, and no doubt the Minister will elaborate, that there appears to be no difficulty: the employees have accepted a settlement; the employers are happy with that settlement; and the money is available. One wonders what the problem is. Unfortunately, the problem has to do with a technical matter in how the Assembly deals with such issues and other pay processes. I realise that that is not a satisfactory answer for those who feel that their cries for help have gone unheeded. Members realise that those who work in further education are the forgotten heroes in any debate on education. Members will be aware that I have long been involved in the manufacturing sector, which was trying to deal with issues such as industrial rating and corporation tax. However, we also recognised that an adequate skills base, particularly in the vocational area, is the most important factor needed to enable our society and economy to progress. That is why I was at the centenary celebration where we saw the effects of further education colleges through the years and also why I have been engaged with the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges (ANIC) over the past year and a half, trying to develop the links that are needed between industry and those establishments. However, buildings and links are of no consequence if those who are charged with looking after them are disillusioned and disenchanted, and we have already heard about the numbers of lecturers who are considering careers elsewhere. If those who are responsible for teaching our young people — and those who are not so young — leave the profession, it will have serious consequences for our future well-being and will leave little hope for the rest of us. I want to mention the amendment. I am aware that some people were concerned that the amendment that we originally suggested might have weakened what the motion intended. I assure Members that that was not our intention. Our intention was to strengthen the motion and to try to find something that could be done. In the spirit of co-operation — I realise that that does not always happen — we have sought agreement with all parties in the Chamber, and that is why we were happy to accommodate Sinn Féin’s sentiments. We now have an amendment that we believe is satisfactory, and I hope that Members from other parties will support us. It took quite a lot of work to ensure that everybody who agreed got a form of words with which they could also agree. It was not that we did not agree; it was the technicalities involved in getting everyone together. The Ulster Unionist Party and others, I am quite sure, are totally committed to resolving this matter. One can have fine words and sentiments — we have all had many of those in the past — but this matter must be resolved urgently. One hesitates to say this, but it needs to be resolved now. However, this Chamber cannot do that. The negotiation must be taken elsewhere. I urge lecturers and others involved in the further education sector to accept that we understand their frustration. When we were going into that debate, I saw the Minister standing for a long time outside Belfast City Hall talking to people to reassure them that we are genuinely sympathetic to their concerns and to their seeking to resolve them. We are aware, of course, that when people get frustrated, when they feel that their voices are not being listened to, there is a temptation that can lead to some form of industrial action. Although I understand that frustration, I hope that we can get the matter resolved before it escalates. It is not only the lecturers whom we have to consider, but those in their charge, and the education of our people is fundamental to that as well. I do not intend to labour the point, because there is general agreement, but I do hope that when we come to the winding-up speeches, we will be able to pick up on the points that Members will raise. It would be useful if we could send a message of solidarity to all further education lecturers. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Mr Spratt): I support the amendment, because it is something that everyone on the Committee can support. This matter has been a priority for the Committee, and we have had a series of meetings to enable us to understand the problem and work towards a resolution. Before the return of devolution, the Chairperson and I, in designate roles, met with the trade union side on 1 May. At that meeting, the union put the case for a swift resolution to the problem forcibly and comprehensively. Indeed, since the return of devolution, the matter has arisen at most Committee meetings. The Committee, like the parties involved, supports the principle of pay parity. What makes this issue unique, and somewhat bizarre, is that both management and employee sides are in complete agreement. The Committee is aware that the financing of any prospective pay settlement is not a stumbling block to resolution. Rather, the problem is that the Treasury’s public-sector pay committee is blocking the settlement. That is the crux of the problem that we are facing. The Committee has raised this issue with the Minister, Sir Reg Empey, and his officials on a regular basis and has asked to be kept fully informed of the situation so that it can advise and aid a resolution in any way possible. The Committee also met with a senior delegation from ANIC on 6 June in a further attempt to gain an in-depth knowledge of the topic. 12.00 noon We sympathise with the situation in which ANIC finds itself, especially at a time when colleges in Northern Ireland are facing radical overhaul. A resolution to the issue is therefore a matter of urgency, as any continuing dispute would get the process of change off to a very difficult start. I have great sympathy for further education lecturers. The findings of the Horisk Report outlined the issues clearly. On average, college lecturers earn £3,400 a year less than schoolteachers doing similar work. Around 13,000 schoolteachers have reached point 3 on the upper pay scale for schoolteachers, some £2,600 per annum beyond the top of the lecturers’ pay scale. There is a six-point incremental scale for teachers, compared with a 10-point scale for further education lecturers. There is no justification for such a disparity, and I reiterate my support for parity. The pay disparity is having a major impact on the morale of further education lecturers, which will not be conducive to an effective and smooth transition from 16 further education colleges to the six super-colleges that are due to open on 1 August 2007. We cannot allow a situation that has resulted in ongoing industrial action to continue to disrupt the further education sector indefinitely, and to disrupt the education of students as a result. In recent years, there has been a drift away from employment in further education towards employment in schools, universities or industry. Indeed, 14 key staff have left the sector in the last year. We should address the need for high-quality teaching staff rather than watch them drift away from the sector. Conditions should be established to benefit those in the further education sector and to attract young professionals into it. The contribution made by further education lecturers to economic development in Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. That value should be reflected through remuneration and earning potential. At a time when Northern Ireland is suffering from a shortfall in its skills base, the invaluable role of further education should be promoted, not demoralised. We therefore need to move forward, and the motion is helpful in that regard. I urge all those involved in the dispute to consider innovative ways to address the problem. I support the motion as amended. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá áthas orm tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún agus don leasú atá leagtha amach ar Riar na hOibre. I am pleased to support the motion, as amended. Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Members who have brought the motion to the House. As some Members will know, my former colleague Marietta Farrell — a college lecturer herself — first raised the issue of pay parity in the Transitional Assembly, and I was happy to support her. My colleagues and I have supported college lecturers on picket lines and have spoken at a rally in Belfast city centre. Education reform in Northern Ireland will require greater sharing and collaboration between schools and further education colleges in order to deliver the entitlement framework. Further education colleges will be at the hub, if not the heart, of that collaboration, as colleges have the expertise and the range of courses and resources to complement what is available in schools. Indeed, schools would often otherwise struggle to provide such a range of subjects for their pupils. Following the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Costello Report, the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning launched a pilot vocational enhancement programme (VEP). That programme involves all further education colleges working with approximately 190 schools, providing professional and technical courses for more than 14,000 pupils. That pilot is entering its fourth year, and, to date, the available evidence shows positive outcomes from that collaboration. Further education lecturers teach pupils from the schools involved, but they do so for considerably less remuneration. The Bain Report makes it abundantly clear that collaboration between schools and further education colleges will be a key component in arrangements for 14-year-olds to 19-year-olds. That collaboration will involve the movement of staff, a common and coherent education and training strategy for 14-year-olds to 19-year-olds, and teacher education arrangements that include a common set of standards for qualified-teacher status across that age group, with staff development across schools and FE sectors. That should be done in a co-operative rather than competitive manner. In order to prepare for future co-operation and collaboration, the discrepancy in salaries between schoolteachers and further-education lecturers should be removed. Although the Bain Report calls for collaboration, co-operation and the sharing of resources, one of the best resources that we have — our FE teachers — is treated differently to teachers in schools. Lecturers in further education are currently loaned from their institution to local grammar schools to teach A-level subjects that it would not otherwise be financially viable for schools to offer. Those lecturers often come from industrial backgrounds, and in their own institutions teach their subjects to higher national diploma or degree level. They bring their experience and knowledge of their subjects and professional working lives to the classroom. That can only be of benefit to pupils. Nevertheless, on average — I stress “on average” — they receive £3,000 a year less than the grammar- school teachers in the classrooms next door and the secondary-school teachers whose pupils they teach under the VEP. If that anomaly is allowed to continue, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the levels of co-operation and collaboration that the Bain Report and education reform demand. It is unjust and unfair, and if that discrepancy is not removed, education reform will be much more difficult to achieve. Many FE lecturers perform similar work to teachers. They teach the same range of academic and vocational courses that are taught in schools. They teach similar groups of students to teachers in secondary and grammar schools, and they are required to hold higher-level qualifications and to be teacher-trained. Mr Lunn: The Alliance Party has no problem with supporting the original motion, or the proposed amended motion, in so far as it goes. However, we feel that it does not go far enough. I do not remember being consulted about the wording. Basil McCrea said that he spoke to all parties, but the Alliance Party is not aware of any such discussion. Mr B McCrea: I meant to say, “attempted to talk”. I have just spoken to Mr Ford outside the Chamber, and I understand that the Alliance Party attempted to talk to both Mr Butler and me but that communications broke down. The point that I was attempting to make was that there is no disagreement on the general sentiment but that we need to get ourselves in order. We did not know in advance that the Alliance Party had proposed an amendment. I offer my apologies for that misunderstanding. Mr Lunn: No apology is required. Mr McCarthy: Do not do it again. [Laughter.] Mr Lunn: Further education lecturers are crucial to our education system, yet they do not get the recognition that they deserve. They are being short-changed by a situation that has been allowed to develop unnecessarily, to the extent that, on average, their salary lags £3,400 behind their schoolteacher counterparts. Lecturers promote a crucial link between schools, skills and the workplace. To secure the sector’s long-term future, it is absolutely essential that the best talent is attracted to it — lecturers as well as students. The pay differential and the deteriorating industrial relations that encourage lecturers and teachers away from the sector clearly affect that aim. Lecturers have a right to feel frustrated; they have similar qualifications to, and undertake the same duties as, schoolteachers, and they operate in a sector that is crucial to the future of our economy, as evidenced by the success of the Republic’s institutes of technology. The Alliance Party wants the Minister and the Executive to rectify the situation and not push it further down the pipeline. Only last week, at a graduation ceremony at Lisburn Institute, I heard the Minister expressing his sympathy for, and some frustration with, the situation. I agree with the comments that he made that day: uniquely, the employers, the unions, his Department and every party in this House are all in agreement about the need for pay parity. It appears that the Department has the funds to address pay disparity but feels bound by the UK public-sector pay policy. As Mr Butler said, the same obligations did not appear to stop the Welsh Assembly from dealing with the problem in May last year. That legislature went ahead and adjusted lecturers’ pay. Are the powers of the Welsh Assembly any different or any more extensive than those of this Assembly? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. One issue being discussed as part of the wider education debate is the need to make the vocational route just as attractive to pupils as the academic path, and to remove any perception that a particular school or college is of a lesser standard than another. The pay anomaly sends out a wrong message that must be corrected. My party calls on the Executive to address the pay problem, because an unintended incongruity has been created. Our Welsh cousins have shown the way to correct the pay disparity, if the Department for Employment and Learning can come up with the funds. My party acknowledges the problems caused by making unplanned financial decisions, but, in this case, the funds are in the Department’s budget. I encourage the Minister to take the action that he clearly wants to take and resolve the inequality. The Alliance Party supports the motion as amended, but wishes that it went further and prompted the Minister to deal with the situation, notwithstanding the Treasury’s public-sector pay policy. Mr Ross: I am in total agreement with the general thrust of the debate, although I would have been unable to support the original text of the motion. I therefore welcome the fact that the Member opposite has amended his motion, in conjunction with the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Basil McCrea. I will be able to support the motion as amended. Several Members have mentioned that college lecturers currently receive, on average, £3,400 less than schoolteachers for doing essentially the same job. That is particularly frustrating when college lecturers have seen teachers’ salaries rise in recent years while theirs have remained virtually static. There has recently been a drift away from college lecturing in favour of teaching in schools and universities. Indeed, it is proving increasingly difficult to attract people into the further education sector — and why would people go there, if the pay is lower than in similar sectors? There should be pay parity, and the fact that there is not is detrimental to the attitudes of many lecturers, which clearly impacts on students. Indeed, the chief executive of the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges, Mr John D’Arcy, commented that the ongoing industrial action: “is having a significant impact on students, on service provision and on the longer term financial viability of colleges.” Poor morale undoubtedly has a negative effect on teaching conditions, which, after all, is the most important factor for students attending further education institutions. There is a wider need to address the relatively low status of further education lecturers, and a need to recognise their importance as Northern Ireland moves towards a skills-based economy. Indeed, from briefings received at meetings of the Committee for Employment and Learning in recent weeks, it has become abundantly clear that further education colleges and lecturers have a significant role to play in ensuring that jobseekers have the skills required for when they enter the workforce. Today we are in a rather bizarre situation where employers and staff agree on pay structures and the money is available, yet because of a pay cap imposed by central Government at Westminster, the new pay structure cannot be applied. I reiterate that I have the greatest sympathy for the plight of further education lecturers. However, there would be massive implications from any move to break away from the pay policy implemented by Westminster. The precedent that that would set would cause chaos, as other public-sector employees such as nurses and doctors would also seek pay reviews, resulting in the situation continuing on and on. As Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, we must recognise that Her Majesty’s Treasury has the final say on public-sector pay policy. We must, therefore, work within those limits. If we do not, there will be major implications for the Northern Ireland block grant. We must be sensible and recognise that our hands are tied on this issue; because of that, we have some sympathy for the Minister. 12.15 pm In conclusion, I support the amendment to the motion in calling for the Executive to examine how pay parity can be achieved within the existing constraints, and I hope that the Minister and the Department will be able to find a resolution. Mrs McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the debate, and the contributions made to it, and I commend my Sinn Féin colleagues for bringing the motion to the House. In particular, I welcome the following words in the amendment: “to secure urgently a mechanism to achieve pay parity.” According to Jim McKeown of the University and College Union (UCU), there are hundreds of FE lecturers teaching vocational courses in schools. Mr McKeown says that a teacher and lecturer may do exactly the same job, but the former will nevertheless earn £3,500 more than the latter. Taking £3,500 as the differential for one year, that sum amounts to £14,000 over four years, which is a substantial sum of money. That means that for two people doing the same job over the short term of four years, one will earn £14,000 more than the other, which is not acceptable. In 2000, the Horisk Report, to which my colleague Paul Butler referred, said that the earning potential of lecturers was significantly below that of schoolteachers and that lecturers had fewer opportunities for various allowances and promotions. In 2005, following agreement on many of the provisions in the Horisk Report, the employers and unions found that the Government had placed a cap on public-sector pay. In January 2007, the Secretary of State, Peter Hain, appeared to accept and approve pay parity — not for Northern Ireland, but for Wales. By March 2007, the FE colleges were involved in their seventh strike of that year. One can only imagine how low morale would be in those circumstances: seven strikes in less than a year, and still no resolution on pay disparity. It is important to point out that the VEP means that FE staff will teach approximately 14,000 pupils annually. I have spoken to teachers who work as part of the Limavady Learning Partnership, which is an example of schools working together in a new education climate where collaboration is key. In Limavady, FE teachers teach the same pupils as secondary-school teachers, but get paid £2,500 or £3,000 less than the teaching colleagues whom they work with in that partnership. The UCU argues that FE colleges have huge financial reserves; around £56 million in 2004-05. The UCU says that a mere fraction of that sum would be enough to settle the dispute. Is there a willingness from governing bodies and the Department for Employment and Learning to settle the dispute? It may be appropriate that I declare an interest as a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning. DEL is reported not to oppose pay parity in principle, and ANIC is in favour of scrapping the pay cap. Taken at face value, those positions are positive, and there should be a genuine effort from all involved to sort out the inequality. We all want the new era for the FE sector to begin in harmony. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Newton: I support the amendment. It must be recognised that the further education lecturers’ pay- parity dispute needs to be settled. That dispute dates back to 2001, at which stage the trade unions felt that they had an agreement in principle with the employers. However, that perceived agreement was not honoured, and the pay cap was imposed. The issue is festering, and, in the longer run, it will have a major impact on the morale of all those involved in the education and training of future key employees, who, as has already been said, will make a significant contribution to the well-being of the Northern Ireland economy. We are talking about those who are engaged in the vocational skills areas; the importance of apprentices for the future of Northern Ireland; the technical skills that will underpin the Northern Ireland economy; and the technologists that will deliver, develop and take forward future high-value-added products for the Northern Ireland economy. Where do those people come from? To a large extent, they come from the further education sector, where the lecturers are in dispute over pay parity. I am sure that all Members, and those in the wider political establishment, have been lobbied by lecturers who live in their constituencies or who work in colleges in their constituencies. Indeed, anyone who has been lobbied has witnessed the high levels of frustration that lecturers are suffering. It has been said that action has been taken in other parts of the UK — rightly or wrongly — to deliver pay parity. Reference has been made to the situation in Wales, where the importance of the matter and the need to deliver a settlement have been recognised. I have already referred to the need to underpin our economy with vocational, technical and technological skills. Northern Ireland has no natural resources except its people, and we must recognise that it is vital for them to acquire skills to take part in, and make a future contribution to, the Northern Ireland economy as it grows in intensity and operates in a global economy. My colleague Mr Ross has already referred to the Minister’s contact with lecturers and their trade unions, and one would have some degree of sympathy for that action. However, I also know the restrictions that all Departments are under to deliver an effective and efficient service to the whole of the Northern Ireland public in the days ahead. That will obviously cover all services, including the further education sector. The Assembly has recognised the importance of the matter, and the positive role that further education lecturers play in the well-being of Northern Ireland. However, we must recognise the circumstances and constraints that exist in dealing with the matter — and I think that we have done that by generally accepting the amendment. At the same time, we must acknowledge the Assembly’s willingness to see the matter through to a satisfactory conclusion. I support the amendment. Mr McClarty: All sides of the House acknowledge that further education plays a fundamental role in the creation of a knowledge-based economy for Northern Ireland. The issue is not, therefore, merely another pay dispute. In many ways, there is no pay dispute. My hon Friend the Minister for Employment and Learning, the employers and the trade unions all agree that pay parity between further education lecturers and teachers should be established. The motion goes to the heart of the economic future of Northern Ireland. The further education sector has a key role to play in delivering the skilled workforce that is required if our economy is to flourish in the twenty-first century. We all know the economic challenges that face Northern Ireland. We have all heard economists, employers and trade unions tell us that skills — the very skills that are delivered by the further education sector — are essential if we are to have a growing, modern, knowledge-based economy. If that is the vision that we as an Assembly share, we need to demonstrate it in concrete, practical ways, one of which could be through working to ensure pay parity for further education lecturers. If we genuinely value the crucial economic role that is played by the sector, we will recognise that lecturers should have pay parity with teachers. The lack of such parity sends out all the wrong signals about the further education sector and about choosing a career as a further education lecturer. It suggests an outdated view that further education is somehow second best and is of secondary importance to our economy. It is not; it is equally as important as schools and universities. The Executive must find a way of working towards pay parity for further education lecturers. Of course, as an Assembly, we have responsibility for the entirety of the public finances, and we recognise the many and varied public-expenditure priorities. However, if economic growth and the creation of a knowledge-based economy are priorities for this Assembly and Executive, we must recognise the role of the further education sector and we must secure pay parity for further education lecturers. I support the amendment. Mr P Ramsey: I thank Paul Butler for tabling this motion and for his comprehensive presentation. Like Robin Newton, I acknowledge the positive and significant contribution made by so many lecturers in Northern Ireland. Quite a number of lecturers are in the Gallery today, and I welcome them. Teachers in the further education sector are, for the most part, qualified to at least degree level. They hold, or are working towards, teaching qualifications through the University of Ulster. In addition to their academic qualifications, further education lecturers, particularly those in the trade sectors, have high levels of professional experience in their subject areas. I have to declare an interest in this matter, having done, quite a few years ago now, three years of City and Guilds courses at the North West Institute of Further and Higher Education. I personally know several lecturers, and I know that taking industrial action has not been an easy decision for them. They do not want to cause any delay, frustration or hardship to their students. It is clear, given the circumstances, that their morale and motivation cannot be good at this time. Further education is vital to the development of students’ and workers’ skills and is a vital gateway for people who want to re-enter the education system through lifelong learning. The further education sector is therefore essential to the social and economic regeneration of each region. I do not think that anyone can argue with that. It is crazy that, as Claire McGill said, lecturers earn nearly £3,500 a year less than teachers. It is no wonder that their morale and motivation are so poor. If the sector is vital to the social and economic fabric of Northern Ireland, if the people who work there require similar qualifications to those of post-primary and university teachers, and if they are carrying out similar roles — as we all know they are — why are their efforts being rewarded with lower wages than those of their counterparts? There is evidence that the recruitment and retention of college lecturers is becoming more difficult. In the long run, that could result in degradation of the quality of teaching and research. That would obviously have a negative impact on educational, social and economic outcomes — the key aims of our education effort. Imagine if this were the private sector, with one company paying less to its workers than another. What would be the result in the long run? The company that was attempting to pay less for the same skills would ultimately lose quality and its market position. Its product would be inferior, and everyone would know it. That logic is self-evident in the private sector, and the same logic must apply to the public sector. 12.30 pm It is essential that the dispute be resolved as quickly as possible — especially before the merger of colleges on 1 August 2007. That, and the unsettled pay dispute, will be a recipe for disaster. The goodwill of lecturers made this a reasonable year for their students; however, goodwill may become scarce in August if there is no resolution to the dispute in sight. Demoralised and demotivated lecturers can hardly be expected to do the highly professional job that we have come to expect of them. We cannot afford to send a signal to lecturers and students that the education provided by further education colleges is of lower quality and is not as valued as that provided by schools and universities. The current high standards must be maintained in the long run. It is only the commitment of further education staff to their students that maintains the high quality of education across Northern Ireland. That goodwill can be stretched only so far, and for so long, before the most committed teachers in further education simply move to another sector. Quality across our educational system must be maintained at the highest level possible. Most people would find that acceptable. There is no doubt that people who deliver education, whether in schools, colleges or universities, should be properly rewarded for their work. That financial reward should be commensurate with their qualifications, experience and effort. I urge the Minister and the Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to resolve the dispute as a matter of urgency. Some Members: Hear, Hear. Mr Beggs: I, too, support the motion as amended. I received training in technical colleges at different stages in my life. First, in my post-primary education, I received training in woodwork and metalwork at a local technical college. Later, I achieved an O level in technical drawing. It is hard to believe that, even at that stage, the teachers who were teaching academic courses were on a different pay scale to those lecturers teaching non-academic courses in the same college. I valued both types of training. As my education progressed into the engineering field, I increasingly valued the technical skills of those in engineering and the skills of those involved in crafts. There is no justification for the differences in remuneration between lecturers and teachers. The emphasis on lifelong learning encourages people to continue their education throughout their lives. Why should those teaching people who have left secondary education be paid less? The new post-primary curriculum changes may provide an opportunity for the Executive to examine the issue, and I will return to that later. I have experience of briefings on the new learning partnerships that are being extended across Northern Ireland. As other Members have said, that has resulted in further education lecturers going into local schools and delivering courses to pupils. Again, there is a huge inequality, in that those lecturers, even though they are teaching recognised courses, and teaching the same pupils, are paid less than the teachers employed at those schools. That cannot be allowed to continue. It is widely recognised that we need to increase the private sector in Northern Ireland and that there is often a shortage of skills in craft and technical areas. If we wish to encourage more people into those types of training and courses, we must value those courses and the lecturers who teach them. We must raise, as a society, the significance and the importance of the further education sector and those who teach in it. There should be equal recognition of the training of young people and adults, at whatever their stage in life. One group should not be treated as second class. From reading the briefings, I have discovered that 66% of teachers receive additional responsibility allowances, but only 25% of lecturers receive those allowances. Why is that the case? The purpose of some of the negotiations that took place was to try to change that situation and encourage the adoption of a fairer pay policy. It is important that there are no such inequalities. This is not the Hain Assembly, or a local council complaining to the Northern Ireland Office. We must recognise our authority and our responsibility, and work within our remit and with the cards that we have been dealt. We should not walk away from here having called for action while we pat ourselves on the back, knowing that nothing will happen. The amendment that has been selected improves the original motion, and at least outlines a planned set of actions, which, it is to be hoped, will have a result. The Assembly’s Research Sevice has been helpful in providing the details of the business case submitted by the Department for Employment and Learning to the public-sector pay committee at Westminster, which stated: “Pay proposals for each pay round and for each staff group in the FE sector are submitted for approval each year in a collective pay remit for the sector, prepared, on behalf of the Colleges, by the Association of Northern Ireland Colleges.” Pay proposals must gain clearance from the Department for Employment and Learning and approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel before they are submitted to the public sector pay committee. That process involves several Departments, and it would be helpful if we knew the extent of the public sector pay committee’s authority and the potential penalties that it can impose if that authority is breached. How did the Welsh manage to obtain a settlement while we did not? Opportunities exist for a way forward, however, and it is to be hoped that those will be provided in the context of the proposed changes to the education system. Mr Attwood: I welcome the debate, and the SDLP will endorse the motion as amended. I spoke recently to Irish Government officials on a range of North/South matters. Interestingly, they observed that, although the corporation tax reduction was, and will continue to be, a catalyst for economic growth, the Republic of Ireland was being marketed internationally as much for its skills base as for its levels of corporation tax. The millions — now billions — that have been invested in research and development and skills development through the Irish Republic’s national development plan serve to underline the importance that should be attached to skills development in the North if we are to attract economic opportunity for all. There is much to be learned from the Republic of Ireland’s experience when acknowledging and promoting our FE sector. The FE lecturers’ pay dispute is an acute issue. Members will know that the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC is hosting an event to promote Northern Ireland, and that event is bigger than some might realise. It is big enough to justify the presence of four or five Ministers, including the Deputy First Minister, in the next few days. The Minister for Employment and Learning may also attend the event. How will we answer potential economic investors who want to come to Northern Ireland but ask whether Northern Ireland has the skills base to meet their manufacturing needs? Should our response be that we do not have the skills base, and that those in the FE sector who provide those skills are in dispute over their pay and conditions? That is an incongruous position for this part of the world to be in, at a time when we hope to receive an economic boost as a result of the emerging new political order. I have several questions for the Minister for Employment and Learning to try to move the issue of pay parity forward. First, if the equal treatment of FE lecturers and the advancement of a skills base for economic development — and development overall — in the North are such crucial issues, are the Executive making them a matter of negotiation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Are those matters being discussed, as we heard yesterday from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in and around other issues as part of continuing negotiations on corporation tax? Are the Executive working with the Minister for Employment and Learning and the Department of Finance and Personnel to take forward negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Pay parity for FE lecturers is too important not to be part of such negotiations. Given the length of time that has been spent in trying to resolve the issue — something that fell originally to the management of the further education sector in the North — FE lecturers need to hear today that this issue will be part of negotiations with the Chancellor to progress matters generally in the North. The DUP Member Alastair Ross flagged up another issue. Is there any resistance in DEL or DFP to getting this matter resolved? It was interesting that the DUP Member said that although pay parity was important, it could not be resolved at the price of breaking the pay-policy review system because the implications for the North would be too great. His comment was interesting, and it begs the question: is there resistance in Government, including in DFP, to asking that the issue of pay parity be resolved, because to do so will be at the price of breaking the pay review system? The Minister should report to the Assembly on his latest conversations with the Secretary of State — who might not be the Secretary of State much longer — on this matter. If Wales and Scotland are not part of the pay review system, is it not the case, legally and politically, that regardless of what action the Exchequer might take, the Executive could impose pay parity? The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): I am grateful to those who moved the motion and the amendment, and to those who have participated in the debate. It is fair to say that it would be rare to find almost unanimity around the Chamber where an industrial dispute is involved. However, I do not need to be persuaded that FE lecturers in Northern Ireland should have pay parity with schoolteachers. I fully support the principle of pay parity for FE lecturers — lecturers and schoolteachers do essentially the same job and should enjoy equal status. It is wrong that one group should be rewarded at a lower level than the other. However, it is inaccurate to say that all FE lecturers in Northern Ireland are paid less than their counterparts in schools. Although the overall remuneration package for schoolteachers tends to be higher than that for FE lecturers at an individual level, the differential can vary widely. However, the average FE lecturer, unlike a schoolteacher, does not have the potential to enhance his or her basic pay through progression on an advanced teaching scale, or through the payment of management allowances for undertaking additional responsibilities. An FE lecturer’s salary scale is also longer, and, therefore, it takes more time to reach the top of the scale. As a result of their pay differences with schoolteachers and the rejection of their claim for pay parity by the Treasury’s public sector pay committee, FE lecturers, understandably, feel undervalued and aggrieved. Poor relative pay for FE lecturers, when compared with that of schoolteachers, does not affect the importance of their role in supporting Northern Ireland’s economic development, in particular the enhancement of the skill base and the implementation of the post-primary review. Increasingly, FE lecturers are required, on the one hand, to support the skills needs of employers, and, on the other hand, to teach schoolchildren the technical curriculum that is now available under the educational entitlement framework. Fewer than two weeks ago at Belfast City Hall, there was the unwelcome paradox: a variety of guests from all walks of life, including myself and other Members, were there to celebrate 100 years of success in FE in Northern Ireland while, outside, the people charged with its day-to-day delivery were forming a picket. I made reference to that point in my remarks at the City Hall. 12.45 pm In any college that I have visited, I have endeavoured to engage with the lecturers’ unions, and, when asked, I met their representatives. I have brought the unions and the employers together in my office, and I am conscious of the need to resolve the matter. Many Members mentioned that need, and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not respond to their individual comments. It is accepted that there is a strong argument for pay parity. Mr Attwood asked whether I had had discussions with the Secretary of State. The answer is yes. I asked him to contact his colleague, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Timms, on my behalf, which he did. I received his response a few days ago, and I am perusing it. In reply to Mr Attwood, the Secretary of State and I are actively involved in discussions. I have brought the matter of pay parity to the Executive on several occasions, and I pay tribute to the staff in my Department and in the Department of Finance and Personnel for their consistent work on the subject. They know how important the issue is to Northern Ireland, and, together, we are working hard to resolve it. Hopefully, the two Departments will complete the work on the matter in the next week, and we will then contact the parties involved in the dispute to consider steps that might be taken to move the issue forward. The Treasury has imposed a national pay policy, and, in a note to Peter Hain, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that Finance Ministers from the UK decided at a quadrilateral meeting last year to apply the policy generally. For a variety of reasons, the group of lecturers involved in this dispute fall under that national pay policy. Reference has been made to the Welsh model. In Wales, the linkage between lecturers’ pay and pay councils pre-dates the formation of the public-sector pay committee. However, nothing is ever as straightforward as it seems. There is pay parity in Wales, but individual lecturers’ earnings vary considerably. We have also considered the situation in those parts of the UK in which there is individual plant, as opposed to collective, bargaining. Many Members have used the word “anomaly”. There is no question that this situation is an anomaly. That is the reason why I am seized by the necessity to work urgently on the matter, and the reason why my Department has put in a lot of effort in recent days. Normally, we would not be involved at all; it should have been a matter between employers and employees. The Department is involved only because of the national pay policy. Neither is it a matter of money; the money is there to pay the claim. I am indebted for the advice, help and support that we have received from the Committee for Employment and Learning. I noted, and echo, the remarks made by Mr Spratt on behalf of the Committee, who pointed out that it has taken evidence on the matter. The pay dispute is a bizarre situation that everyone agrees should be settled: employers, unions, the Department, the Committee, and everyone in the Chamber. No Member has said that they are not happy with the proposals to pay the claim. However, the fact remains that we are dealing with a national issue. Alex Attwood pointed out that people say that we have sanctions. What does that mean? We do not quite know, but we know what it could mean. Quite clearly, it could have an impact on the Northern Ireland block grant. It could even have implications for the UK on a much wider basis: if a policy were breached here with repercussive effects in other parts of the UK, it could be argued that Northern Ireland was to blame for a UK-wide increase. The Department must steer through all kinds of issues. I want the House and lecturers to understand that the Department is not playing Scrooge. I have listened carefully to Members’ arguments on the benefits to the economy of the output of those lecturers. That is where policy is moving. At present, it is a fundamental policy, which has gained ground during the years of devolution: the link between further education, higher education and the economy is constantly growing. Those sectors work together much more closely now than they did several years ago. Undoubtedly, further education is considered fundamental to the economy. That point has been extremely well made throughout the Chamber. Although it is not the main purpose of my visit to the United States, I intend to visit the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. People who work in Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education and Omagh College of Further Education, for example, are participating in the exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution, which aims to sell Northern Ireland to an international audience. I will be on a visit to North Carolina, a state that has a similar history to that of Northern Ireland and where further education has been the driving force of a revival of the economy. The public sector pay committee was made aware of the anomaly between further education lecturers’ pay and that of schoolteachers. However, it took the view that whatever the merits of pay parity, it should not be obtained by setting aside current limits on public-sector pay increases. Indeed, as Mr Butler and Mrs McGill will know, it went further and said that it could accept the argument for parity but that the way to achieve that was to bring down teachers’ pay. I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that that was a genuine, serious suggestion: in fact, it was disingenuous. I regret that that comment was made. Realistically, how could anyone make a stand in favour of it? Where does |