northern Ireland assembly Monday 24 September 2007 Assembly Business: Ministerial Statement: Committee Business: Assembly Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Retirement of the Clerk to the Assembly Mr Speaker: On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I inform the House that, since we last met, I have received a letter from the Clerk to the Assembly, Mr Arthur Moir, in which he conveyed his decision to retire from his position and return to a legal consultancy role in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Arthur has served in the position of Clerk and Chief Executive since 2001. For much of that time, he was tasked with maintaining the Assembly secretariat and our facilities in a state of readiness for restoration. The challenges of doing so over such a prolonged period were considerable, and Members must be grateful to him for ensuring that we were able to resume full business immediately on restoration. Members will be aware that a review of the Assembly secretariat is under way. In his letter to me, Arthur has anticipated that the review is likely to recommend a significant programme of reform and restructuring that will last several years. Mindful that he had not intended to serve in his current position for such a period, it was his view that retiring from his post at this time would allow the Assembly Commission to appoint a new Clerk and Chief Executive to oversee through to fruition the full programme of change. In my own opinion, such concern for the best interests of the Assembly and its secretariat is typical of our Clerk, whose service to the House has been marked at all times by commitment, loyalty and integrity. I know that Members will wish to express their gratitude to him and will have an opportunity to do so at a later date. Looking ahead, the Commission is taking firm steps to ensure continuity of service to the Assembly while the process of appointing a new Clerk is undertaken, and I will write to Members once appropriate arrangements have been put in place. Members’ Participation in Debates / Ministerial Statements Mr Speaker: During the business of this House on 18 September 2007, Mr Dominic Bradley raised a point of order. He referred to the involvement of Members in a debate when those Members had not been present for all of that debate. Mr Bradley thought that that was inconsistent with his not being called to ask a question following a ministerial statement, after he had missed the start of that statement. At this stage, I want to point out that the regular business of the House is different to that of ministerial statements. I would not expect any Member to sit through the entire day’s business — I understand that Members have other work to do. There will be a ministerial statement later this morning, so, once again I must emphasise the principle and the convention to be observed with regard to ministerial statements. If Members who have been present in the Chamber to hear all of the statement wish to ask questions, I will seek to ensure that they can do so. If Members have been in the Chamber for part of the statement, and if there is sufficient time left, I shall allow them to put their questions. However, those Members will not be called before the Members who have been present for the entire statement. The Chair will try to accommodate as many Members as possible. It is attendance in the Chamber that counts; it does not matter that Members may have been listening to the statement elsewhere. Some Members have indicated that they have heard a ministerial statement in their rooms and that that should be enough to allow them to rush to the House to ask questions. That will not happen. If Members wish to ask questions, they must be present in the Chamber to hear the full statement. I hope that I have made clear the difference between the day-to-day business of the House and ministerial statements. Workplace 2010 Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on Workplace 2010 and the location of public-sector jobs. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I want to make a statement on a couple of issues of interest that were considered at the last Executive meeting. The first of those is the Workplace 2010 contract, which, because of its nature, has courted some controversy, and I shall come on to that shortly. The second issue, and one that is in some ways linked, is the ongoing debate on the location of public-sector jobs. Both of those matters, certainly during my time as Minister of Finance and Personnel, have generated intense interest and speculation about how and where we accommodate civil servants. Members could be forgiven for thinking that something as dry as Civil Service accommodation would hardly be the stuff that headlines are made of and would not make for particularly riveting reading. However, those projects have grabbed the attention of many people for a whole host of reasons. I am pleased to report that, on what have been very difficult issues for all the parties on the Executive Committee, we have fashioned the way forward in such a way that the Executive have agreed unanimously that both projects should proceed to the next stage. The Executive’s ability to agree on the handling of Workplace 2010 and job dispersal demonstrates the foolishness of claims that the Executive are avoiding taking difficult decisions. I wish to address some concerns directly. First, the fact that we are proposing to deliver Workplace 2010 through PFI procurement has caused considerable debate. Secondly, there is concern that the PFI contract will in some way consolidate the Civil Service in Belfast and thus restrict any future movement of business. Thirdly, concerns have been raised about what will happen to the 500 civil servants who are employed in estate and property-related work. Those are the matters that have been at the heart of the debate, rather than the estate itself, so it was important, when coming to conclusions, that Ministers, including myself, were able to consider them before making decisions to proceed, and it was for that reason that I submitted papers to the Executive seeking their approval. Towards the end of the next stage, I intend to bring the details of the contract back to Ministers for further consideration, but I firmly believe that this is a good example of how, as an Executive, we have demonstrated that we are prepared to take on, and come to consensus on, the big issues. I shall start with Workplace 2010, which, for Members who are less familiar with the detail, is a proposed PFI contract that would enable some 77 Civil Service office buildings to be transferred to a private sector partner who would be responsible for upgrading about 15 of the core properties at a cost of about £100 million. In taking over the buildings, the private sector would also be responsible for maintaining and servicing them during the period of the contract. When I became Minister of Finance and Personnel, the competitive process to find the most suitable private-sector partner was well advanced — the Department had already shortlisted Land Securities Trillium and Telereal from four bidders who had initially submitted proposals. The question for the Executive and for me was whether the procurement, which is worth about £1·5 billion, should proceed. Is it right for Northern Ireland? Is it right for the Government? Some commentators who take a very superficial view of matters have, for example, suggested that we are selling off the family silver. Well, some of that is very tarnished silver. We are not talking about buildings of great historical or cultural interest. We are talking about office blocks and Portakabins, some of which are well past their sell-by dates and in urgent need of attention. In the greater Belfast area, for example, we are dealing with 18 buildings that are owned by the Government, and, of those, 14 will be either demolished or vacated once the refurbishment programme is complete. That gives some idea of the state of the buildings that we are talking about, and that situation is not sustainable for reasons of efficiency and the conditions in which some people are working. Ironically, the best of the accommodation is already leased, so the idea of the Civil Service renting from the private sector is by no means new. Seventeen leaseholds will transfer in Belfast, and we will continue to occupy most of them for the lifetime of the contract. In summary, we have an estate that needs major investment to bring it up to scratch and provide better working conditions that will drive improvements in the delivery of services, which, ultimately, is what the public sector is in business to do. Since doing nothing is not an option, we have had to consider how those improvements should be funded, and the amount of money that we need is simply not available to us. Having looked at various procurement options, we have concluded that the financial case for PFI gives us best value for money. To put it simply, the 77 buildings cost us about £70 million each year, and that allows us only to tread water. The Workplace 2010 contract will see the successful private sector partner investing about £100 million in improving the accommodation. We will have a contractual guarantee that the estate will be maintained and serviced to a good standard for the next 20 years or so, and all that will be done for broadly the same amount of money that we are spending at present. As things stand, we can also expect to get a capital payment in the region of £200 million to help fund other projects such as roads, hospitals and schools during the comprehensive spending review period. 12.15 pm Therefore, by selling the “tarnished silver”, we will be provided with quality, polished silver to use and the money to buy new, valuable and urgently needed assets. It is a very attractive deal, and it is absolutely essential if we are serious about proceeding with the priorities in our investment strategy. That said, we nonetheless need to be assured that the contract represents value for money. The financial case shows that, as things stand, the PFI contract is hundreds of millions of pounds cheaper than traditional procurement, but it is important that appropriate safeguards be put in place. On that subject, the Committee for Finance and Personnel has been particularly helpful. The Committee has produced a report that majors on value for money, based on the experience and evidence of other PFI projects. It has, quite rightly, subjected the project to a rigorous examination and proposed a number of recommendations, which I have accepted and which will provide the necessary assurances to my ministerial colleagues, and to the Assembly, that value for money is being delivered. Related to the subject of value for money is the issue of the value of the estate, and the concern that the Government could have their eye wiped by a private-sector partner intent on making excessive profits at our expense. I have been able to say to other Ministers and to the Committee that the Department has looked in some detail at the structure of other deals. It has also looked at what the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Ireland Audit Office have had to say about other deals, and a commercial approach has been developed that will ensure that Civil Service interests are protected. The approach that we are taking will realise best value as and when sites are released and will optimise the share of any profits. We have also assured the Committee that the outcome of an independent valuation exercise will be taken into account in the final contract. As I have already said, a key concern for staff and the unions is the impact of that contract on the people who are employed in estate- and property-related work. If we are to transfer the estate and all the associated functions, the question arises about what happens to the staff, many of whom are messengers and support-grade staff who want to remain in the Civil Service. Therefore, although we are clear that the transfer of functions such as reception and security services makes good financial sense, we are determined to ensure that any staff who want to remain in the Civil Service have the opportunity to do so. We have done that by introducing a process whereby messengers and support staff can, for the first time, transfer to mainstream Civil Service jobs, with the opportunity to follow a career path that previously was not available to them. Over three quarters of the 300 staff involved have applied to transfer to administrative jobs, and the feedback to date has been very positive. As a result, I have been able to assure Ministers that there will be no compulsory transfers to the private sector, and the Executive have unanimously agreed that that should indeed be the case. In my opening remarks, I said that concerns had been raised that the contract would restrict our capacity to relocate jobs in future. In the context of Workplace 2010, the Department is working on the basis that the contract must be flexible enough to accommodate future movement of business, whether that be for political or operational reasons. This is where we start to stray into the wider issue of the location of public-sector jobs, so, at this stage, I should perhaps move on to address that particular piece of work. As I have said before, our public sector is too large, given the overall size of the economy in Northern Ireland. We must build the private sector. However, at the same time, I recognise the critical role played by public servants. I also recognise that decisions around the future location of public-sector jobs could have important implications for communities throughout Northern Ireland. Decisions will have to be taken about where the new bodies created as a result of the review of public administration (RPA) will be based. We also need to think about the longer term. I, therefore, asked the Executive on 13 September to agree to a two-pronged approach. First, we shall develop a framework that will provide a robust process for decision-making on the location of RPA-related bodies. Secondly, we will undertake a time-bound review of policy on the location of public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland. Again, I am pleased to say that the Executive have agreed to that approach. There is a need to create a coherent and integrated framework to underpin decisions on the location of RPA-related bodies. I am talking about the decisions on the permanent location of bodies such as the new Northern Ireland library authority and the education and skills authority. The framework will help to ensure that the decisions that are made about the location of those new bodies will be well informed and soundly based. In the spring, the Department of Finance and Personnel consulted on the proposed framework. It invited views on the proposed guiding principles in order that decisions that result from the RPA on the location of public-sector jobs could be underpinned. Not surprisingly, the consultation attracted strong interest, and there were many helpful responses. As I mentioned earlier, since then the Committee for Finance and Personnel has published the document ‘First Report on Workplace 2010 and Location of Public Sector Jobs’. That report included several constructive recommendations on the proposed framework. The framework will broadly follow the approach that the consultation document proposed, with amendments to reflect both the Committee’s report and consultees’ responses. Alongside the guiding principles, there will be a detailed methodology as to how the principles should be applied to help to ensure openness and robustness throughout the decision-making process. Given that the Executive have now agreed the framework, we will work towards publishing it later in the autumn. Although the framework will provide a robust methodology for making decisions on the location of the RPA-related bodies, we will also need to think about the longer term. There is no extant proactive dispersal policy in Northern Ireland. To date, dispersal has relied on taking advantage of opportunities as they arose in cases in which value for money could be demonstrated. In an Adjournment debate in the summer, I quoted figures on the location of public-sector jobs. As those figures illustrated, the picture on the location of those jobs is complex, as are the issues on the costs and benefits of dispersal. The wide spectrum of opinion and the complexity of location were also reflected in the responses to the consultation. For example, as expected, dispersal was one of the key themes to emerge in the analysis of the consultation responses. Several respondents favoured a proactive policy of dispersal of public-sector jobs from the Belfast area. Other respondents, although they acknowledged that a well-managed relocation policy could bring a more even spread of benefits of public-sector employment opportunities across Northern Ireland, also emphasised the critical role that Belfast plays in driving the Northern Ireland economy. They also pointed to the many areas of deprivation in Belfast. Overall, however, most respondents expressed a desire for greater clarity and openness on the policy of the location of public-sector jobs. The Committee for Finance and Personnel’s report called for an affirmative policy on the dispersal of public-sector jobs. It stated that that policy should be complemented by a cross-cutting strategy on job location, covering the Northern Ireland Civil Service, local government, and the wider public sector. Taking all that into account, I, therefore, believe that it is important that the location of public-sector jobs receives proper, detailed consideration. For that reason, I proposed initiating a time-bound review of policy on the location of public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland to enable the Executive to come to an agreed approach on location policy. Ministers have supported that review, and I have agreed shortly to introduce to the Executive further detailed proposals on the terms of reference for the review and who might undertake it. Although the details of the review require further consideration, it is important that it be independent and chaired by someone who is experienced in the public sector and respected in the community. The review would be time-bound and would also include a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the dispersal of public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland. The review would also examine decentralisation policies and their implementation in other jurisdictions. Initiating a detailed, time-bound review on location policy, alongside introducing a robust framework to facilitate location decisions for RPA-related bodies, provides a practical way forward. In the context of Workplace 2010, I am content that the final contract should reflect any decision on a dispersal policy that the Executive might make following the review. I need to bring to Members’ attention one final point on Workplace 2010. The Executive have agreed that the procurement of the contract should now proceed to best-and-final-offer stage. However, that is subject to a court injunction on the procurement being lifted. Unfortunately, during the summer, one of the unsuccessful bidders filed a legal challenge on the basis of belief that his or her bid was evaluated unfairly and irrationally. Given that the Department believes that there is no case to answer on the fairness and integrity of the process, suffice it for me to say that it does not accept that claim and will vigorously defend itself. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) As things stand, an injunction is in place that prohibits the Department from inviting best and final offers from the two remaining bidders. That injunction is due to be reviewed at a hearing on 11 October, when I can assure Members that the Department will be strongly opposing any extension on the grounds that any further delay will substantially prejudice the project. There is, therefore, likely to be a bit of a hiatus until the injunction issue can be resolved and, as yet, I cannot give any guarantees as to how long that will take. In the meantime, I am grateful to Ministers from all parties for their support and I will, naturally, update the Assembly on progress in due course. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Storey): On behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the Department’s positive response to the Committee’s report on Workplace 2010 and the location of public-sector jobs. The Committee has proposed a take-note debate on its report and the Department’s response. That debate will provide a further opportunity for the House to consider the matters that have been set out today. In that context, I ask the Minister when further information on the proposed review of policy on jobs location will be available to the Committee. I refer, in particular, to the scope, terms of reference and timetable for the review. Is the Minister minded to bring that information to the Committee before its presentation to the Executive? Mr P Robinson: I thank the Committee for its work on its report on Workplace 2010, and for the views that it has expressed on job location. I welcome the take-note debate that the Committee hopes to propose. As for the Member’s question on the timetable for the review, the Department is currently considering a number of matters, including which person or persons should carry out the review. As I indicated in my statement, we are looking for someone who will be respected in the community and who has some considerable experience in the relevant area of activity. I imagine — if I have to make a fist of it — that we will probably bring those recommendations to the Executive in the next four to six weeks. Of course, I will ensure, before going to the Executive, that I have the advantage of hearing the views of the Committee. That will be important and beneficial. The Committee will be part of the process. Ms J McCann: I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I too welcome the review. Given the concerns that the Minister outlined about the implications for the long-term equitable dispersal of public-sector jobs across the Six Counties, will the flexibility of the Civil Service estate be restricted by long-term contracts with the private sector? Given the direct linkage between Workplace 2010 and the relocation of public-sector jobs, will the Minister guarantee that there will be a clear and direct link between Workplace 2010 and the equitable dispersal of public sector and Civil Service jobs? Mr P Robinson: I am aware of the concerns that many people have expressed. I have managed to travel around the country and hear people’s views on the matter. People who live west of the Bann will, I hope, see that, in the past, I have always encouraged development in that region. I did that in the Department for Regional Development, and I can assure the Member that, when it comes to the dispersal of public-sector jobs, I will do the same in the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, the final contract will be sufficiently flexible to allow us room to manoeuvre, whatever the Executive might decide on dispersal policy. Indeed, that contract will come to the Executive before they sign off on the final private-sector partner. 12.30 pm As for linkages, the Member will already be aware that I have made it very clear in my remarks today, and in the way that they were presented to the Executive, that the matters are linked. For legal reasons, the only contractual similarity between the two is that flexibility on job dispersal will be built into the contract, which will allow the Executive to make decisions based on the new policy. Mr Beggs: The Minister spoke of selling tarnished silver. Does he acknowledge that there is some sparkling silver among the 77 buildings proposed for the sell-off — I am thinking, in particular, about the jobs and benefits offices that have been modernised at a cost of tens of millions of pounds in recent years? Does he also acknowledge that, contrary to public opinion, there are constituencies in the east of Northern Ireland, such as my East Antrim constituency, which have the lowest number of Civil Service jobs? Will he ensure that the lack of significant numbers of Civil Service jobs in eastern constituencies will be taken into account in any policy to disperse those jobs? Mr P Robinson: I am aware that some offices have been refurbished and that approximately £50 million has been spent on that refurbishment. However, we need to be very clear that the proposed contract will ensure that those offices stay in that state for the next 20 years. The requirements are very clear. It is not simply a case of sale and lease-back — whereby one finds oneself in the position of selling property and leasing it back again from a private-sector landlord. In this case, we will have a contract, which will require the private-sector landlord to keep those properties, and the management of those properties, at the highest of standards. As far as Civil Service jobs in East Antrim are concerned, I made the point that that issue is complicated. I remember teasing one of the Members for West Tyrone during an adjournment debate that in examining travel-to-work areas in relation to public-sector jobs — and comparing the jobs of 100 economically active people in an area — Omagh was the highest in Northern Ireland, and Larne was probably the worst. It is not just as simple as dispersing all the jobs to the west. Areas inside the Belfast travel-to-work area, but outside the heart of Belfast, can, in many ways, be seen to be in more difficulty than those west of the Bann. Mr O’Loan: I welcome the review of Civil Service jobs and the fact that the Minister has said in his statement, and in an earlier answer, that the outcome of the policy will be reflected in the final contract. Elsewhere, I believe the Minister, in making his decision on the matter, referred to it as a “no-brainer”. That is a rather risky phrase to use in view of a previous decision, which another Minister also referred to as a “no-brainer”. I hope that for the Minister’s sake, and ours, the phrase does not come back to haunt him. There are legitimate concerns about PFI contracts because there have been situations here and in Great Britain in which, in the end, the public interest has not been served well by PFI contracts and private contractors have done extremely well. What real assurances can the Minister offer the Assembly and the public that this PFI contract will work in the public interest? Mr P Robinson: I am grateful to the Member for his earlier remarks. Although there are examples such as Balmoral High School — which comes into the conversation each time someone talks about PFI — to some extent it is those examples that will help us in relation to this contract, because we have learned from all experiences, good and bad, elsewhere in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. The Department has taken all those good and bad experiences on board; and the Committee for Finance and Personnel particularly noted that valuation and value-for-money issues should be considered carefully during this exercise. That has been done. All I can say is that we have learned from the experiences of others, and, on the basis of the changes that we have made, and throughout the process, we have considerably improved the contract. If it were simply a case of our going for the greatest possible amount of capital, the contract would be very different to the one that we have, which builds in flexibility and safeguards to ensure that public interest will be taken into account. Dr Farry: Like others, I thank the Minister for his statement. Is there any logic in deferring the final contract for Workplace 2010 so that the more cost-effective and efficient results of the dispersal strategy will be in place, rather than seeking contract variations down the line? With respect to dispersal, does the Minister recognise that, at the moment, Bangor is the only town that will lose jobs? Does he recognise that that negative dispersal will impact on the local economy’s sustainability and is opposed by the local workforce? What are the current plans for the Rathgael House site? Mr P Robinson: I have attempted to bring forward two sets of proposals in parallel — Workplace 2010 and the location of Civil Service jobs. The dispersal policy will proceed, and I have outlined the timescale, so I imagine that the Executive will have a clear picture of that policy. Therefore, a backcloth will be in place when Workplace 2010 contracts are signed. As far as Bangor is concerned, I have met the Member for North Down and the previous Mayor of North Down, his predecessor. The Department of Finance and Personnel wishes to be located in the Stormont estate — at the moment, our staff are located in approximately 20 buildings around Northern Ireland, which is not an efficient or effective way to operate. The Department is continuing to seek the views of the Department of Education about remaining in Bangor or moving. Therefore, no final decision has been made on the issue. I am aware of the impact that job losses will have to North Down and of the views of those currently employed in Rathgael House. Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure that a common-sense solution will be found with regard to Rathgael House. It is particularly welcome that the debate has not descended into parochialism. Indeed, I commend the selfless attitude of the Member for West Belfast opposite, who seemed keen on maximum dispersal, taking jobs out of her own constituency and dispersing them to the west of the Province. Does the Minister believe that the legal challenge to Workplace 2010 from the unsuccessful bidder will cause any delay to its implementation? Mr P Robinson: I hope that when we — eventually — announce the policy on Rathgael House, Mr Weir will agree that it is a common-sense approach. [Laughter.] One argument for the importance of Belfast is not simply that it is the capital — and there is a view that the main headquarters should be in the Belfast area — but that the many areas of deprivation in the Belfast area must be taken into account in the dispersal policy, just as the Member for East Antrim pointed out the needs of the travel-to-work area outside Belfast. With regard to the legal challenge, I can honestly say to the Member that the courts did not choose to deal with the matter; it was brought to the courts. Therefore, the courts are in no way to blame. There is a case before the courts, so I shall be very careful of what I say; however, it is right to point out that we are already being held back. At their meeting on 13 September, the Executive took the decision to go to the best-and-final-offer stage. The Department could have come to the Assembly immediately after that, but held off because the court was hearing the case last week. Therefore, the Department is already being held back, which has implications for resources and capital under the CSR. That is one of the difficulties that the Department faces in introducing the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2 and Budget proposals. We need to know the amount of funding that will be available during the course of the CSR. Such a large sum of money will have serious implications for the number of roads, hospitals and educational buildings that can be constructed. All those issues must be dealt with in a short period. Therefore, the court case is preventing the Department from taking such decisions and introducing its Budget. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, in which he pre-empted a question that I had tabled to ask him later during Question Time. The Minister acknowledged deep political and social concerns about PFI. His statement went some way to attempt to alleviate some of those concerns. I note that the Executive have agreed to move on the next stage of the process by deciding that the final contracts be presented for approval. I assume that those contracts will guarantee to protect the public purse and expenditure. To be fair, the recent Committee for Finance and Personnel and Public Accounts Committee reports pointed out where past mistakes were made; and the Minister highlighted the example of Balmoral High School, which the Public Accounts Committee is examining. Recently, the Minister made a speech about the Public Accounts Committee. I take the opportunity to assure the Minister that the Public Accounts Committee exists not only to shine the light on mistakes, but to show the way forward to Departments or the private sector, so that they can avoid repeating those mistakes. Can the Minister assure me that, when the final contracts are produced, lessons will have been learned from all past mistakes to ensure that Members who stand in the Assembly 10 years from now are not talking about another PFI disaster? Mr P Robinson: I am not sure how many Members will still be here in 10 years. However, we must learn from past mistakes and avoid making new ones. All that the Executive can do is give their best effort, using their skills, expertise and the experiences of others, to take the correct decisions, and I am confident that we will do that. The Member mentioned that I had pre-empted a question that he intended to ask me later during Question Time. I am sure that that will not deter him from thinking up a new question on the same subject. It is important to remember that the contract is a substantial one worth some £1·5 billion and the Department must get it right. We are seized of that importance and have half a notion of things that have gone wrong in the past. We must ensure that we will not be in a future position of having to explain why we did not act as we should have. We are aware of all the future implications and impact of Workplace 2010. I acknowledge the valuable work of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am glad that the Member follows so avidly the speeches that I make around the country. However, during the speech to which he referred, to the Confederation of British Industry, I simply pointed out that the innovation and new thinking of civil servants should not be curtailed by pillorying them every time they get something wrong. To ensure that innovation is not stifled, there must be some balance in the consideration of such matters. Mr McQuillan: I thank the Minister for his statement. If Workplace 2010 were not to proceed in line with the current timescale, what would be the implications for the capital budget of Northern Ireland? 12.45 pm Mr P Robinson: That would depend on the extent to which Workplace 2010 does not meet the timetable. The Executive will bring forward a draft Budget during October/November. A sum of £200 million would leave a sizeable hole in the capital spend if it were not available to us. If that sum is not available when we bring forward the three-year comprehensive spending review, but becomes available after that, the Executive could make speedy adjustments. However, that would affect the planning for our investment strategy. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Minister confirm that all parties in the Executive agree on the principle of PFI? I welcome the Minister’s comments on concerns about staff. Will he assure the Assembly that those staff who have not yet transferred to the Civil Service will be treated fairly and equitably, and that any of those who transfer to the private sector will have their terms and conditions protected? Will he further assure the Assembly that the private contractors who provide services on behalf of Departments, such as security and reception, will be made fully aware of their statutory obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998? Mr P Robinson: I doubt whether any parties in the Executive agree to the principle of PFI. All the parties in the Executive were prepared to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether that form of procurement made sense in the circumstances. A range of procurement methods were considered, and it was clear from studies that were carried out that PFI was the best method for the project. I will not commit any political party to having bought into PFI, but my party has concerns about it. I told the Executive that I would not be found among the cheerleaders for PFI, but, if it makes sense for a particular project, I am happy to recommend it, and it makes sense for Workplace 2010. We have a clear responsibility to our staff. I am glad that there has been such a large uptake in staff wishing to transfer to the Civil Service. In fact, I wonder why such an option was not available in the past so that those people could have an extended career path. There is no compulsory transfer to the private sector, but if anyone chooses to transfer to the private sector, their conditions will fall under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, which allows Members an opportunity to raise issues relating to Workplace 2010. On the equitability of job dispersal or decentralisation not only to rural areas, but west of the Bann, the Minister mentioned that Omagh did well in comparison to other towns. However, in my experience, Enniskillen seems to have lost many jobs to Omagh, and that is the wrong direction, as far those in Enniskillen are concerned. Did the Minister take into account any criteria when considering the equitability of jobs dispersal? An attempt was made to relocate public-sector jobs in the pensions branch to Fermanagh, but Civil Service officials admitted that they did not have enough staff at grade 3 to even consider bidding for such dispersal of jobs. Does that leave rural areas, such as Fermanagh, unable to bid for such dispersal of jobs? Mr P Robinson: The answer to that depends on the size of the office in question. Obviously, there would be no point in placing a large office — holding hundreds, if not thousands, of people — in an area that is incapable of providing that number of employees. I noted the eyes that were piercing into the Member’s back when he expressed his unhappiness about Omagh taking jobs away from Enniskillen. [Laughter.] That is part of the difficulty in focusing on individual areas in Northern Ireland; all those issues come into play. Even if the Executive had the wisdom of Solomon — and I suspect that they do not — it would be very difficult to find a policy that would keep everyone happy, and through which jobs would go to every area in Northern Ireland. The Executive just cannot do that. The policy has to be open, fair and must be one that people — considering the overall picture — can support. Members must bear in mind that the rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland is 3·4%, which is the lowest ever. There are still jobs available, so there is an issue around the number of people who will be available for jobs. In an earlier debate, I mentioned that there are considerable advantages, other than employment, in stopping people coming into Belfast from outlying areas. One such advantage is reducing congestion. The Executive will consider their policy over the coming weeks and months, and I hope that Members, when determining how good that policy is, will not just think about their home towns, but the whole of Northern Ireland. Mr Hamilton: The Minister has outlined some implications for the capital budget if the project is delayed: what are the implications for the resources budget and for the conditions that civil servants have to work in? Mr P Robinson: As I indicated, we are treading water, and that puts the matter at the highest level of importance. Although £70 million each year is being spent on the present estate, millions of pounds worth of work should be done annually to improve and upgrade the estate. If we are not going to follow the Workplace 2010 route, using a PFI initiative, we are going to have to invest more in the general repair and maintenance of the buildings. One factor that has not been touched on is the overall reform of the Civil Service. If our reform project is to deliver the efficiencies that we want it to, we must be able to move the Civil Service to office conditions that will enable staff to work more effectively and efficiently. There will be a considerable loss in that respect. Some time ago, I asked my Department about the resource implications of a project delay. Over the period of the comprehensive spending review, there will probably be tens of millions of pounds in additional costs to the resource budget. Therefore, there are resource and capital implications. Mr Irwin: I add my thanks to the Minister for his statement. In the past five years, what was the shortfall between what should have been spent on Civil Service buildings and what was actually spent? Mr P Robinson: Over the past five years the shortfall has been about £20 million. Mr Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement, which was timely and appropriate. There has been much concern expressed to me and many others in the Chamber, and further afield, about the sale of land here — particularly parkland and perhaps even this Building. Will the Minister assure Members and their constituents that land, which many people feel was bequeathed to the people of the Province, will not be sold? Will the Minister also confirm what buildings, if any, will be sold, or be considered for sale, in the Stormont estate? Mr P Robinson: I thought at first that the Member was going to test my Ulster Scots, but he let me down. In the context of the debate, I assume that his use of the word “here” refers to the Stormont estate and not to Northern Ireland. I assure the Member that Parliament Buildings is not included in any planned schemes that will become the subjects of PFI. We are talking about buildings such as Castle Buildings, Craigantlet House — where I am currently based — and Dundonald House, and there will be clear criteria laid down in the contract to ensure that neither McDonald’s nor Burger King opens up in place of those buildings. Mr S Wilson: Why not? Mr P Robinson: I am sorry to disappoint the Member for East Antrim. The Stormont estate is magnificent, and no one in the Executive will put their hand to its destruction: no one has any notion of including Parliament Buildings in such a contract. Libraries Bill: Extension of Committee Stage The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr McElduff): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to 25 February 2008, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Libraries Bill (NIA Bill 5/07). Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Libraries Bill passed its Second Stage on 19 June 2007, and it was referred to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure on the same day. The Bill is an important piece of legislation, which seeks to create a new library authority to replace the functions of five education and library board areas, in respect of libraries. The Committee is anxious to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities and conducts a rigorous scrutiny of the legislation, and towards that end, the Committee agreed that it needed to call a range of witnesses. It is, therefore, important that the Committee has sufficient time to consider that forthcoming evidence. That will ensure that the Assembly receives a well-balanced, informed report from the Committee. The Committee is seeking an extension to 25 February 2008 with a view to getting the Committee Stage of this important piece of legislation absolutely right. However, we will endeavour to complete the Committee Stage as soon as possible — hopefully short of 25 February. I ask Members for their support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to 25 February 2008, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Libraries Bill (NIA Bill 5/07). Administrative Support for Party Whips Mr A Maginness: I beg to move That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme (NIA 26/07-08) laid before the Assembly on 20 September 2007, for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties. I move the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Members will be aware that the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 provides for payment to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members to perform their duties. It does not provide payments to individual Members. In tabling the motion, it is proposed that a revised scheme will be put in place to provide additional financial assistance to political parties to help offset the costs incurred solely in running their Whips’ offices. It is important to bear in mind that the funding will be ring-fenced and will only be made available for costs incurred in support of the administration of Whips’ offices. Independent audited verification will be sought from each party in respect of any expenditure incurred under the proposed scheme. 1.00 pm Members will be aware that Whips act as their parties’ business managers. They help to determine the business to be conducted by the Assembly, and they keep Members informed of forthcoming Assembly business. Whips provide advice and guidance to Members on procedural matters and liaise with Whips of other parties to ensure that all Members perform their duties in a co-ordinated and organised manner. They also act as facilitators for Members by liaising with the Speaker and the Assembly staff on Members’ accommodation requirements, IT services, and other matters. All that work allows Members of the Assembly to concentrate on the effective performance of their Assembly duties. It is with that in mind that the Commission has produced this scheme, with all-party support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, as set out in section 2(4) of the Financial Assistance for Political Parties Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, this Assembly approves the revised scheme (NIA 26/07-08) laid before the Assembly on 20 September 2007, for payments to political parties for the purpose of assisting Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who are connected with such parties to perform their Assembly duties. Classroom Assistants Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one and a half hours for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up. All other speakers will have five minutes. Two amendments have been received and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up. Mr B McCrea: I beg to move That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Education to intervene immediately in the classroom assistants’ dispute, in recognition of the vital role of classroom assistants, and to prevent disruption to children’s education. Recently, the Assembly discussed the matter of classroom assistants and called on the Minister to intervene directly to resolve a very serious situation. I am disappointed that the Minister is not here to talk about the issue. At the time, the Minister said she did not have a problem and that she thought that she had already complied with — Ms S Ramsey: Will the Member give way? Mr B McCrea: I will give way, but — Ms S Ramsey: It is just a point of information. Mr B McCrea: I will give way, although the Member will get her chance to speak, if it is a point of information. Ms S Ramsey: I thank the Member for that. The Minister is on her way down. The debate was not due to start for another 10 minutes. Mr B McCrea: I appreciate that information, and that is fair enough. I hope that when I get to the summation she will be able to understand what I am going to say. Mr Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you make a very clear ruling that the House determines its business? It is not set by some timetable that is out of our control, and Members should be in their places when debates start. Mr Deputy Speaker: The timings are just indicative. Mr B McCrea: Given that the clock has now started again, and the Minister has arrived, I will try again. The Assembly discussed the matter of classroom assistants not so long ago, and Members urged the Minister to get involved directly. In response to that motion, tabled by Mr Dominic Bradley, the Minister said that she did not think that she had to do any more than had been done already. The Minister felt that she had brought in an equitable solution. At that time she clearly did not think there was a problem. Now the Assembly is faced with a botched negotiation, a strike, and entrenched positions that will be extremely difficult to resolve. When her colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development was faced with the foot-and-mouth disease crisis she moved with considerable alacrity, consulted widely with all of the stakeholders, and was commended by the Executive for the speed at which she dealt with the situation. I wonder if the Minister of Education will respond in a similar manner to the grave situation that we now face, or will she continue to focus her attention elsewhere? Will she stop considering ideological hobby horses and start dealing with matters in hand? When will the Minister realise that photo opportunities are all well and good, but that there are some tough issues to be dealt with? The previous debate on this subject was extremely useful, and I do not intend to go over the core issues that were raised. However, I bring to the attention of the House some important matters of detail that explain the problems we face. It is important that the Minister gets involved, because the matter is serious and is escalating out of control. Now is the time to intervene decisively, to show leadership and to take control. The Minister must tell us exactly how she will resolve the situation — a final offer has been made and rejected, a ballot has been taken, and people are now on strike. Classroom assistants feel that they are being asked to take a pay cut, and they cannot understand why. Members agree that they do a good job. However, classroom assistants feel that they are the scapegoats for failures elsewhere. While I deal with the situation of misunderstandings, will the Minister clarify exactly how many classroom assistants will need pay protection to avoid a reduction in pay? There appears to be a misunderstanding whether that is an issue. The Minister’s Department presented the Committee for Education with a briefing note. It used the words: “Not all posts were expected to increase in grade as a result of evaluation.” and, “The results of the classroom assistants’ evaluation also show that many are in fact already correctly graded.” Finally, the briefing note says that: “It is therefore a considerable cause for concern that non union members are being denied the arrears due to them.” That may all be true. However, it does not suggest that they will have to take a pay cut. That seems to be the crux of the issue. Some people are being asked to take a pay cut, but everyone else says that they do rather well. I have heard it said on several occasions — usually by people on £60,000 a year — that there are probably too many classroom assistants and that they are probably overpaid. Does the Minister think that classroom assistants are overpaid? Could she clarify that point? I acknowledge that, for some time, the Minister’s Department has been working hard on those issues. However, does the Minister know how hard and for how long? Does she know, for example, that, in November 2005, the South Eastern Education and Library Board reported to the Department that it would have a deficit of £600,000 after repaying £3·5 million to the Department for a previous problem? However, six weeks later, the board said that it was sorry and that it had made a mistake: the calculation was £2 million out because it had forgotten to include the thirteenth lunar month for the pay for classroom assistants, and it had forgotten to include in the budget that there might be a job evaluation and pay review. Suddenly there was a big problem. There are other issues. Is the Minister aware of KPMG’s final report, which shows that the number of special educational needs (SEN) applications had doubled from one year to the next? The report comes up with cryptic words and suggests that we should: “Focus medical input on relevant issues”. What does that mean? It means that we want fewer SENs. There should be fewer statements, not because they are not needed, but because we cannot afford them. Furthermore, the report refers to “adult/general assistants”, rather than specialist assistants. Therefore, classroom assistants must be downgraded. We should: “Revisit and implement recommendations of Internal Audit report on Classroom Assistants (June 2004) Some management responses require challenge.” In other words, go back and think again. Finally: “Revise policy decisions Employment of over-qualified classroom assistants Non-legislative employment of nursery classroom assistants.” Taken in the round, it means that while trying to carry out a fair and equitable job evaluation, a decision was also taken to reduce the number of classroom assistants and the amount of pay that they receive. Is the Minister aware that the Department, when it was doing those things, was acting in opposition to the strategic direction of the rest of the United Kingdom? ‘Raising standards and tackling workload: a national agreement’ was a unique agreement between Government, unions and teachers, which attempted to tackle stress levels and overwork in schools. Key to that strategy was increasing the number of classroom assistants and improving the training they received. Therefore at a time when the Department of Education was seeking to reduce numbers in Northern Ireland, other areas were increasing them. Given that this situation has come to a head, I am interested in what the Minister of Education has to say about that. Other Members will speak of pay cuts, NVQ level 3 and other matters that have been raised. I do not know what is to blame for this situation, but I know the effect — morale has plummeted. Good, decent people are leaving the jobs they love. In addition, we now have a situation in which children who were getting one-to-one care are now being bussed to other schools. The result is that children with behavioural problems are being grouped together with children with autism. That is not efficient, effective or humane, because the first group know exactly which buttons to press to annoy the children with autism. That is not the right way forward. Classroom assistants need this dispute to be resolved. The debate has gone on for far too long, and everyone now wants to know what is going to be done to resolve the situation. The time for prevarication, dithering and concentrating on issues such as Irish-medium education is over. These issues are more pressing. Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to put forward some way to resolve the situation or schools will close. Mr Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr McCrea; I was not expecting the promotion to Speaker so soon. [Laughter.] Ms Purvis: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Education” and insert “to implement the recommendations put forward by the trade unions in the dispute over classroom assistants’ pay evaluation, and to liaise with the Minister of Finance and Personnel to ensure that funds are made available in order to resolve the situation and avert strike action.” I have listened carefully to Basil McCrea’s comments. Some time ago, the Assembly debated the issue of classroom assistants. I have tabled the amendment in order to ask Members whether they care about children, their education and who looks after them. Do Members care if the people who look after their children are skilled and educated to the required level? Do they feel it safe to allow their children to be left in such care? Members must consider those questions whenever classroom assistants are discussed. Members will talk about pay evaluation, special-needs allowances, the need to have qualifications to NVQ level 3, the hourly pay divisor, 32·5-hour week, and pay protection. However, that does not take away from the fact that this debate is about children, some of whom are the most vulnerable in society. It is easy to talk about money and pay; it is easy to get bogged down in discussing how much more per hour a person earns and how we protect the 32·5-hour week. 1.15 pm However, children are at the heart of the debate, especially the most vulnerable children, such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds, those suffering from autistic spectrum disorder, those with behavioural difficulties or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and those who have been traumatised by domestic violence or psychological abuse. Children can be affected by a wide range of issues, such as poverty, the environment and poor housing. Classroom assistants tend to work in schools in disadvantaged areas and with the most vulnerable children. I would like to ask the Minister a direct question. I do not support the second amendment, because the Minister has met the trade unions, management side and the boards. The issues of special needs, NVQ level 3, the hourly pay divisor and pay protection have all been discussed at those meetings. They are continually being discussed. I asked the Minister the other day how the dispute could be resolved. She replied that all she could tell me was that negotiations were ongoing. I can tell the Minister that negotiations are not ongoing. Representatives of the management side have met trade unions in the last few months and they have not negotiated; they set down the final offer that was discussed in the last debate, and they have not moved one millimetre, never mind one inch, on the issue. No negotiation is taking place. The simple reason for that is that there is no money. The Minister should stand up and say that there is no money. It is great to see the co-operation of the Executive and the collective decision-making when it comes to money. However, Members are on their own when it comes to asking for new money. The sides split; nobody walks across the Floor when it comes to new money. The co-operation will probably end today because of this issue. Members must stand up and be counted. Do we care about the children and the people who look after them? When the parent of a child with special needs goes to work, he or she leaves with the knowledge that the child is being looked after to the best standard available because of the classroom assistant’s skills. How can a parent leave with confidence, unless he or she knows that the child will be well looked after? If assistants are expected to take a cut in pay or if they do not have to be qualified to NVQ level 3, will the parent have the confidence to leave his or her child in the classroom? Mr S Wilson: I am worried about the line that the Member is taking. The implication is that classroom assistants — who do a superb job — will do that job only if they are given the right amount of money, and, if not given that money, will do a second-class job. I would like the Member to clarify that, regardless of this pay dispute, classroom assistants do not have to be bribed to give the care and attention that they give to youngsters. They give it very well. Ms Purvis: The Member is absolutely right. I apologise if I gave the impression that classroom assistants will not do their jobs properly if they are not given the level of pay that they want. As I said, this dispute is also about skills and qualifications and the special-needs allowance. It is about people who can care for children to a certain standard. We have that standard, and classroom assistants do a tremendous job, which is why the Assembly and the Minister must take the issue so seriously. We will see standards sliding if the requirement that assistants have an NVQ level 3 is not retained. The issue boils down to how women and how disadvantaged and vulnerable children are valued and respected in this society. It is time that Members stood up — rather than hide behind their party policy or the co-operativeness of the Executive — and told the Executive to put their money where their collective mouth is. Do they support those people or not? Mr Donaldson: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after the second “assistants” and insert “,by convening an urgent meeting of the Department, employers and Trade Union side in the dispute, with an agreed agenda to include (a) retention of the Special Needs Allowance; (b) retention of the 32.5 hourly pay divisor; (c) NVQ III and the job evaluation exercise; and (d) adequate pay protection arrangements, in order to prevent disruption to children’s education.” I declare an interest as a governor of Parkview Special School in Lisburn. I echo the comments of the Member for East Belfast Ms Purvis in respect of the excellent work carried out by classroom assistants — particularly in special schools. Ms Purvis mentioned children on the autistic spectrum. I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand — in Parkview Special School in Lisburn; in Beechlawn Special School in Hillsborough; and in Brookfield Special School in Moira — the excellent work that is done by classroom assistants in special education. There is no doubt in my mind that they are essential and that they provide an excellent support service to teaching staff in those special schools. Owing to the Government’s policy of integrating children with special needs into mainstream education — through the Special Educational Needs and Disability (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 — there are now many classroom assistants working in mainstream schools across Northern Ireland. They provide support to those pupils with special needs who have, and are being, integrated into those schools, and they do very important work. Classroom assistants also work in the pre-school, nursery and the early-years sectors in Northern Ireland. No Member would dissent from the view that we have the highest regard for classroom assistants. That was also indicated by the Member for Lagan Valley Basil McCrea when he proposed the motion. There needs to be a resolution to the dispute. Urgency is required because, on Wednesday 26 September 2007, if there is no progress in the discussions, there is the prospect of industrial action, which will result in classroom assistants withdrawing their services for the day. For the special schools, that probably means having to close for the day because they cannot manage without the support provided by the classroom assistants. I have already had — as, I am sure, have other Members — calls from worried parents who are concerned about what they will do if those schools have to close. Some parents are in a situation where both of them work, and they depend on their children going to school to be able to get their domestic affairs in order. They are also concerned about what will happen if industrial action intensifies. There is the possibility of a three-day closure, then progressively increasing the number of days on which schools are closed. I believe that all Members take the view that it is in everyone’s best interest — particularly the children and their parents — if industrial action can be avoided. I, in common with many Members, have received correspondence from classroom assistants outlining their case. I will quote from two such letters. The first is from Mrs Heather McCann, who lives in my own constituency. Heather is one of 16 classroom assistants in Beechlawn Special School in Hillsborough. She wrote: “The Education Board feel that we should be brought into line with clerical staff i.e. a 36 hour week and the same pay scales, but we are classroom based, not office based. We work hand in hand with the teachers — for and on behalf of the children. The Education Board seem to feel this role has very little value at all. Their proposals have made us feel demoralised, devalued and degraded.” I met Heather and some of her colleagues from Beechlawn Special School. The classroom assistants feel strongly about the manner in which they are being dealt. They feel particularly strongly about the hourly divisor that will be used to calculate their pay. Although they do not claim to be teaching staff, they work similar hours to teachers and are classroom-based. They consider that the 32-hour divisor that was used hitherto ought to be retained for the calculation of their pay. Some will lose out financially if the Department and the boards proceed with current proposals. I feel strongly that that would be unfair, particularly for those classroom assistants who have been in their jobs for many years and who are being told that their existing contracts will be linked to the children that they support. Therefore, if a classroom assistant supports a child who is reaching their final years of education, the assistant’s contract may have only one or two years to go before they have to begin again. I understand why they would feel aggrieved about that. Mr S Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member accept that, given that classroom assistants’ hours are linked to those of children, it is impossible for an assistant to work a full week? Classroom assistants can work only 32·5 hours a week. Therefore, it is unfair to equate them with clerical staff, who may continue working after school hours. Working longer hours would mean that they would be penalised. If classroom assistants cannot work a full week, how can they acquire a full pension entitlement? Mr Donaldson: I thank my hon Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The unfairness of what is proposed for classroom assistants is at the heart of the dispute. I understand why classroom assistants feel so strongly and why they are prepared to take industrial action. I will quote from a letter that Mrs Lorraine Kelly wrote. She is a classroom assistant in the Minister’s constituency, and she works in St Colmcille’s High School in Crossgar. She wrote: “I do what I consider to be very important and rewarding work as a classroom assistant, helping children with physical or learning difficulties to access the school curriculum, but my sense of self-worth has been eroded by a long-standing failure of government (from 1995) to settle a pay dispute and award a fair wage to myself and my colleagues.” She has a valid point. That brings me to ask what the Assembly can do to assist in the resolution of the dispute. I share the concerns raised by Mr McCrea, a Member for Lagan Valley. With the greatest respect, I say to the Minister that the Department is not giving this issue the priority attention that it deserves. When the Minister spoke in the previous Assembly debate on the matter, she said “This matter is urgent” — [Official Report, Vol 22, No 13, p559, col 1]. However, we are no further on. One has no sense that the Department is trying urgently to resolve the matter. Echoing Mr McCrea’s words, I am saying to the Minister that I want to hear more about the Department’s prioritising this sort of issue and spending less time on smaller issues such as Irish-medium education. In the overall scheme of things, Irish-medium education affects a small number of pupils, whereas this affects large numbers of pupils and staff. Therefore, it deserves greater priority than the Minister gives it. I hope that she will assure us that, when she says that a matter is urgent, she will act with the urgency that it deserves. 1.30 pm I commend to the House the amendment that my hon Friend Miss McIlveen and I tabled. I cannot support the amendment that the Member for East Belfast Ms Purvis tabled, because it is not for the Assembly to determine the outcome of the classroom assistants’ dispute. It is a matter for the employer, the classroom assistants, the trade unions and the Department of Education to resolve. The DUP amendment urges those involved to resolve the dispute immediately, in terms that are beneficial to classroom assistants, and to address adequately the agenda items, as listed in our amendment, that should be at the heart of any meeting. Our amendment outlines the appropriate role for the Assembly to take. I urge the Department to sort out the matter, avert strike action and give the classroom assistants a decent and fair deal. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil Sinn Féin ag tabhairt tacaíochta do na cúntóirí ranga ina bhfeachtas ar son páighe agus coinníollacha le roinnt blianta anuas. Over many years, Sinn Féin has given full backing to classroom assistants in their campaign for better pay and conditions. Sinn Féin MLAs and councillors have stood on picket lines alongside classroom assistants. Sinn Féin’s elected representatives have publicly raised the issue and backed classroom assistants. Others in the Chamber, including some from the parties that tabled the motion and amendments, have not been as proactive as they would have us believe. Since the debate on the classroom assistants’ dispute in June, much criticism has been levelled at the Minister of Education, Caitríona Ruane. What have those who tabled the motion and the amendments, and who lined up in June to criticise Caitríona Ruane, done in the intervening period to achieve a resolution, except to bring the matter to the Assembly at the eleventh hour? There has been an ongoing campaign against the Minister of Education — Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: No. The classroom assistants’ dispute is the latest in a host of issues in that campaign. Sinn Féin fully recognises the pivotal role that classroom assistants play in the education system. They deserve, and should be entitled to, pay and work conditions that reflect their important role in education. Many industrial disputes are settled in a matter of months, so it is unfortunate that the dispute in question has continued for 11 years. It is legitimate to ask why it has taken 11 years for the dispute to reach the point at which industrial action will be taken on Wednesday. I hope that we can avert the imminent industrial action at this late hour. Sinn Féin supports the motion, which calls on the Minister to intervene in the dispute. However, we cannot support the proposed amendments. They would place restrictions on all sides involved. They would also put the Minister in a difficult position should she intervene, since she would have to get agreement from all sides. All parties that are involved in the dispute must get around the table to try to reach agreement, and the amendments, if accepted, would not assist that outcome. The dispute has been going on for far too long. The employers, the education and library boards and the unions that represent the classroom assistants must redouble their efforts to bring the dispute to an end. Classroom assistants have been left behind by a job-evaluation exercise that dates from 1995. That exercise has been completed for other sections of the education and library boards’ workforce but has left classroom assistants in an unfortunate situation. Despite having protested and gone on strike, classroom assistants are still involved in a protracted industrial dispute over their pay and conditions. Tuigeann Sinn Féin ról lárnach tábhachtach cúntóirí ranga, agus ba chóir cothrom na Féinne a thabhairt dóibh. The Assembly must acknowledge that, as another Member said, 99% of classroom assistants are female. Those women are reluctant to go down the road of strike action: it does not come easily to them, given that they work with children, many of whom have special needs. The Assembly must also acknowledge the help and support that classroom assistants have provided to children with special needs and learning difficulties. The classroom assistant’s role is often to help children who would otherwise fall behind the rest of the class. Caitríona Ruane has met all the parties involved in negotiations and has made resources available to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately, her efforts have not been able to end it, and industrial action is due to take place on 26 September. The priority is to resolve the dispute. Mrs M Bradley: In today’s politically correct society, equality plays a major part in any employment scenario. Therefore, it is disturbing when a group of people in education, who play a major part in children’s school days, have largely been ignored and undervalued for the past 12 years. Next to the home, parents expect schools to be places of contentment and learning for their children and grandchildren. Five days a week, parents entrust their children to the safe haven of school, where they will learn and play their way through a curriculum that expands year after year and demands more and more from teachers and classroom assistants. Yet, classroom assistants must fight to get what is rightfully theirs. It is unbelievable and disgraceful that classroom assistants must fight to have 12 years of wrongful grading corrected and face the prospect that their hourly rate will also be devalued. The outlook is even bleaker for those who work with children who have statements of special educational need: they stand to lose their special-needs allowance. Why should that happen when the payment will remain untouched for teachers in Northern Ireland and classroom assistants in the UK? That is only one of the many symptoms of the vile disease of cuts in the education system. However, who decided that the lower-paid worker should suffer? My colleague, Dominic Bradley, and I met classroom assistants and their representatives. Their frustration was palpable. Indeed, there was anger, because some of their colleagues have died — one in May 2007, for example — without having received what was due to them. There is much bad feeling about that. However, the dedication of the workers continues. They have tried desperately to resolve the situation and have not once allowed it to interfere in the education of Northern Ireland’s children. All they have received in return for their loyalty and dedication are additional problems to overcome, such as their payment divisor being amended in order that the education and library boards could save money. In this day and age, how could an employer allocate set working hours, yet use a divisor of 3·5 hours when working out salary increases just to ease the burden on their budget? It is criminal and disgraceful, and a private organisation would have been in court quicker than one could say “compensation”. Mr Gardiner: Does the hon Member agree that classroom assistants are more than just that? Under child protection law, they are also the eyes and ears of those in more senior positions in the school; for example, when people are patrolling around a school in order to prey on young children — totally unacceptable behaviour that should result in such people being put behind bars immediately. Mrs M Bradley: I thank the Member for his intervention. I certainly agree with him. Put all of that — and the wrangling over the NVQ level 3, which, despite being essential for employment as a classroom assistant, will go unrecognised — into a large melting pot, and the result is 7,000 classroom assistants who are sick, sore and tired of being booted between the five education and library boards and the Department. They are sick of being given excuse after excuse. The result is that 93% have had enough and have spoken by ballot. Apart from the workers, the other losers are the children who depend daily on the extra help that is given so carefully by classroom assistants. Therefore, I can see no reason why every Assembly Member should not — or could not — make an effort to resolve that scandalous situation. We face a real threat of strike action, which we have been informed about this week. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Education — as I did on 19 June 2007 — to do all in her power to help resolve this matter, rather than delaying the game any further. Otherwise, the ball will be lifted and the players will leave the pitch. Spending £30 million was never going to make the problem go away. What is different now? I am interested to know whether the Minister saw the press coverage at the weekend of how her colleagues, at last — at least those in Derry — are supporting the classroom assistants: or was that just a case of jumping on the bandwagon to grab a headline? Mr P J Bradley: I apologise for taking up my colleague’s time. I recall a morning, outside St Mark’s High School in Warrenpoint, when the Minister — then an ordinary Assembly Member — stood with protesting classroom assistants and offered them 100% support. I am concerned that that support has now been retracted, and I ask the Minister whether those classroom assistants are entitled to equality in the workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that when Members give way, they are entitled to an extra minute. Mrs M Bradley: As I said, I asked the Minister, on 19 June 2007, to do something about the classroom assistants’ situation. I felt passionately about the issue then, as I continue to do. I remind the Minister that she has children who attend school and, therefore, will recognise the worth of classroom assistants. We all know their worth. End the current situation in which those classroom assistants find themselves, and end it now. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Lunn: It is unfortunate that, yet again, we are debating the same issue that was debated — and on which a motion was passed — on 19 June 2007. Given the threat of industrial action, and the potentially devastating effect of that on the education of our children, it is entirely appropriate that we revisit the matter. I hope that the Minister gets the message this time. The Alliance Party is sympathetic to the unions in as far as the current problem represents the last outstanding dispute. Nevertheless, we cannot simply agree to the unions’ recommendations without taking into account the financial reality faced by the Department and the education and library boards. The amendment tabled by Dawn Purvis takes no account of financial reality; it merely asks the Minister of Finance and Personnel to bankroll the settlement of an industrial dispute. That is ridiculous. There is a significant gap between the funds that are available and the funds that are required to meet the trade unions’ recommendations. If that gap were bridged, money would have to be taken from elsewhere in the education budget. I point out the cost of segregation, as highlighted by Deloitte, and its effect on the education budget in particular. If we did not have so much duplication of expenditure in Northern Ireland, there would be more money available to do the work that really matters. My colleagues and I have received significant levels of correspondence from classroom assistants, as has, I am sure, every Member. I can tell Ms Purvis that the correspondence was not solely from females. I detected a hint of sexism in Ms Purvis’s approach to the issue. It is not a gender issue. Ms Purvis: I call Members’ attention to my contribution to the debate on 19 June 2007. I said quite clearly during that debate that the majority of classroom assistants were women. I apologise if I gave the impression that I was talking only about women. However, the majority of classroom assistants are women and, therefore, the majority of classroom assistants affected by that decision are women. Mr Lunn: Fair enough. I thank the Member for clarifying that point. However, I know how her remarks sounded. The issue of classroom assistants’ remuneration is extremely complex. Like so many issues, it can only be resolved through dialogue. Complications include the details of re-evaluation; the requirement of the boards, which are currently underfunded, to provide the money; and the need to channel appropriate money to the boards. There is no easy solution and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The implication of Ms Purvis’s amendment is that the wage increase should be paid. Last week in the Chamber I said that parents, teaching professionals and everyone else with a stake in education are becoming increasingly concerned by the Minister’s lack of action in a range of areas. It is my view that urgent action by the Minister — starting a dialogue with the unions, at least — could still help to avert strike action. We must not restrict the Minister’s actions unnecessarily. That said, it is really hard not to sympathise with the unions’ views, particularly as regards the special-needs allowance, the requirement for NVQ level 3 — now discarded by the boards — and the 32·5-hour/36-hour pay divisor. 1.45 pm However, it is up to the Minister to judge how best to take this matter forward, and it is up to Members to urge her and encourage her to do so. I trust that she will move the process on as quickly as possible. The Alliance Party intends to support the motion and amendment No 2. Miss McIlveen: In June, the Assembly called on the Minister of Education to take immediate action to settle the issue of job evaluation for classroom assistants. It is now September, and we face the prospect of industrial action in two days’ time by one of the unions. I understand that it is only a matter of time before other unions ballot their members on the issue. The Minister has been charged to act and has failed to deliver the goods. I am not surprised by that failure. It is just one in a string of failures: there has been a failure to decide on the issue of academic selection; a failure to provide a clear policy on the implementation of the Bain Report; and a failure to account to the Assembly for her exorbitance in her announcements on the opening of wasteful Irish-medium schools and on unnecessary amalgamations. No doubt the longer she remains in her present post, the longer the failures will continue to mount. She is the second Sinn Féin Education Minister to have failed to deal with this pay dispute, which is now the longest-running pay dispute ever in Northern Ireland. I am beginning to wonder whether a Sinn Féín Education Minister will ever do anything constructive while holding the ministerial portfolio. Do destructive habits die hard? I am not surprised that the situation has reached the point where classroom assistants have resolved to strike. In fact, I applaud the classroom assistants for their patience. It has been a long 12 years. They play a valued role in the education of our children but remain some of the lowest-paid workers in the public sector. The facts and figures surrounding this dispute have been detailed not only in this debate, but in the debate in June. I do not intend to rehearse them. Suffice it to say, we are no further forward now than we were back then. It is time that the Minister and the Department sat down with the education boards and the unions, and they must not leave until this matter is resolved. Amendment No 2 calls for an appropriate agenda for those talks. It does not call for capitulation, but for discussion and negotiation. If such discussions are to take place — and I sincerely hope that they will — I will ask for all parties to approach the matter with mature, open minds to come to an equitable settlement. Unfortunately, I am unable to support amendment No 1, tabled by the Member for East Belfast. That amendment shifts the blame to the Minister of Finance and Personnel. This matter clearly falls within the remit of the Minister of Education and her Department, and it is up to her and her Department to sort it out once and for all. One union has voted for strike action, but let us not permit the current situation to deteriorate any further. I echo UNISON’s call for eleventh-hour talks to resolve the dispute. We must remember that it will be the children who will suffer from the disruption of their education. Working parents will face additional expense as a result of additional childminding costs, and all parents will face upheaval as they may be forced to collect their children halfway through a school day because of insufficient staffing. Even if this week’s strike action is not avoided, I call on the Minister and the Department not to rest until a resolution is found — before further days are lost. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I think that the Member has let the cat out of the bag on the Department of Finance and Personnel issue. She said that discussions to resolve this dispute should be supported by all parties, and I agree with her. However, making cheap jibes at the Minister of Education does not show a desire to encourage all parties to support those efforts. In my view, getting rid of the 11-plus was good work carried out by a Sinn Féin Education Minister, as was increasing the amount of money spent on special education. If this is about collective decision-making and responsibility — Mr Storey: Will the Member give way? Ms S Ramsey: No, I will not give way. If the Member is serious about getting all-party support on this matter, she should stay away from the cheap jibes. I support Basil McCrea’s motion, which calls on the Minister to intervene in the classroom assistants’ pay dispute. I fully accept — as did Jeffrey Donaldson — that the matter is complex and that we all want to see it resolved. Mary Bradley is right; this does not just have a negative impact on us as Assembly Members or on communities in general. It has a negative impact on our children and on the work that classroom assistants do every day. They are not there just to assist. They are there to play a positive role in the lives of the children they work with. In fairness, every Member who has contributed to this debate has recognised the positive work that is done by classroom assistants. There is no dispute about the contribution that they make to our schools, especially in relation to children with special educational needs — that has also been mentioned in the debate. Classroom assistants make up one of the most highly professional sectors of the educational workforce, providing learning support to the most vulnerable people in society. Several debates over the past few weeks in the Assembly have mentioned young people with special needs and those who live in poverty. It is important to recognise that when we — or the Executive, collectively — talk about the most vulnerable people in society. The Minister has a measure of responsibility, but so does the Executive. If this is solely a matter of funding — and I know that it is not — the Executive, through the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Minister of Education and her Department, must sort it out now. There is no doubt in the Chamber about the role of classroom assistants. No one would challenge the value of their contribution. This dispute has gone on for 10 or 11 years, and, in fairness to Mary Bradley, I do not think that any of my colleagues in Derry has taken cheap publicity shots on this. I have been on the picket line over the years. If we are being honest, and saying that we all support the motion for whatever reason, and want it resolved once and for all, we should not take cheap shots. The Minister has children of her own, and in the previous debate on 19 June committed herself to resolving the situation. I support her in her efforts. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Shannon: I support the DUP amendment. The Assembly discussed this not so long ago and made a strong case for equality, fairness and justice for the 7,000 classroom assistants in the workforce. I am sure that Members are familiar with the film ‘Groundhog Day’, in which Bill Murray’s alarm clock wakes him every day at 6.00 am to the sound of Cher’s singing, and his day repeats over and over again. We have an equivalent in the Chamber and the Province: Caitríona Ruane is the actress starring in ‘Groundhog Day’. She wakes up every day at 6.00 am, the alarm goes off, Cher is singing, and the same thing happens for the classroom assistants — nothing. The classroom assistants have had the same problem for the past 12 years. They have been waking up to the same thing over and over again. The time has come for the Minister to accept her responsibility and decide that it is time to move on. In a rare feat for the Assembly some time back in June, there was little disagreement about the fact that the situation is unfair. However, there was a not-so-rare attempt by the Shinners to twist words to protect their Minister and say that she is doing all she can. The fact of the matter is — Mr Brady: Will the Member give way? Mr Shannon: No, I will not. One might safely say that we are in a worse situation, as the classroom assistants’ union have decided that they have no option but to strike. That is not a decision that the members of the union have taken lightly. Indeed, it is all that is left to them to do after 12 years of patience, talking, and waiting for the Government, our Assembly and our Minister to do something. They have no desire whatsoever to stand outside the schools on Wednesday and watch the children whom they love and help walk past them into the classrooms without them. For the record, members of my party and I have stood on the picket line with the classroom assistants. I did it in Portavogie and in Newtownards, and I am sure that other Members will say that they have done so elsewhere. Classroom assistants do not wish to leave the teachers, whose workload is incredibly high due to the amount of paperwork and red tape that they must wade through in addition to teaching 30 children, without help. For 12 years, classroom assistants have allowed their thoughts of the children and their respect for their teacher colleagues to stop them taking the strike action that has often been the port of call for so many other employment issues. However, enough is enough: we can no longer blame the indifference of the direct rule Minister. We must look closer to home to see why our classroom assistants are left with nothing else to do other than wait for justice for another 12 years. Such a wait cannot be expected. I could mention in detail, as other Members have done, the special-needs allowance, the change in the salaries for classroom assistants, and that their pay is based on a 36-hour week despite the fact that most of them work only 10 to 12 hours a week. Instead, I will put on record the concerns of my constituents, who have repeatedly and forcefully reiterated the need for classroom assistants in the schools in my constituency of Strangford. Parents have acknowledged the vital role played by classroom assistants in the education of their children. As other Members have said, children who are young, were premature or have slight learning difficulties are still able to excel and fulfil their potential given the opportunity offered by the support and commitment from classroom assistants. Teachers have explained to me how overwhelming their job is and that it would be impossible to meet the criteria and allow each child to find his or her individual place in the classroom without the aid of a classroom assistant. They would find it next to impossible to do it all by themselves, and they rely on the presence of the assistant, not only for learning resources but for help with behavioural issues. It has been found that children are better behaved in classrooms that have classroom assistants. They give the teachers eyes in the back of their head to see what is going on in the classroom. I have also been told of one school, where the cleaner can potentially earn more than the classroom assistants. Where is the equality and fairness in that? Classroom assistants have done their job faithfully year after year, supporting the teacher, loving the children and pouring immeasurable worth into their lives, and it galls them to consider strike action. When 93% of classroom assistants voted for strike action, they did so out of desperation. I ask the Minister to consider that and to do the right thing: release the money and ensure that equality and fairness prevail, beginning in our schools where the future of our children is at stake, and do it now. Let us not see this matter before the House in another few months. Members must demand a difference and teach the learning authority a lesson on fairness, which it has consistently failed to heed for the past 12 years. As ‘Groundhog Day’ finished on a happy note, I urge the Minister to conclude this issue on a happy note for classroom assistants. Mr K Robinson: As a governor of two primary schools in Newtownabbey, I declare an interest in the matter. It is a hard act to follow our film critic, Mr Shannon, but at least he did not burst into song as some of his colleagues are apt to do. [Interruption.] Please no, please no. Along with other Members, I have a sense of déjà vu as we again debate the issue of classroom assistants. The long-running dispute is in danger of finding a slot in ‘Guinness World Records’ if it continues to bounce along with no satisfactory outcome in sight. One of the major bones of contention is the requirement to offer a level 3 NVQ when applying for the position of a classroom assistant. That is a perfectly reasonable requirement as we seek to improve the qualification levels of all of those working in schools and strive to increase the standards of literacy and numeracy. However, the failure to recognise such a vital qualification during the negotiations around the job evaluation is puzzling to say the least and is clearly an unsustainable situation. In 2003, the Government produced a key document entitled ‘Raising Standards and Tackling Workload’. While clearly differentiating between the roles of teachers and assistants, it stated: “The remuneration of support staff, including high level teaching assistants, will need to reflect their level of training, skills and responsibilities” Surely, that suggests that the boards should now take into account the qualifications of classroom assistants, namely, the NVQs. However, there appears to have been a last-minute “moving of the waters”, which might allow some common sense to reign at last. 2.00 pm Mr Kennedy: Does the Member welcome the fact that it appears that, as a consequence of today’s motion, which stands in the name of the Ulster Unionist Party, progress has — at long last — been made on the dispute? Does he agree that such progress will be very welcome? Mr K Robinson: I am glad that the Member has intervened, even if he has stolen my thunder. I have in my hand a fax that suggests that there has been some movement between the employers and the unions. I think that a meeting took place between them on Friday afternoon, at which an offer was proposed. That offer was to be made known today. Whether that has happened, I cannot comment, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is the situation. The union side has apparently met the chief executives of the five boards, and, although that is not the usual negotiating position, it at least represents forward movement. Those emergency talks appear to have led to an offer’s being made this morning. Whether that offer is acceptable and meaningful, we wait for the Minister to tell us. I hope that the offer will be meaningful. I hope that it will protect the historical contractual rights and include a framework that will enable the service to meet not only its current needs but its future needs. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way? Mr K Robinson: I am sorry; I am running out of time. However, the Department and the Minister must come clean. The Minister must assure the House that they are not rigidly instructing the employers to remain within some predetermined financial allocation, thereby delaying any potential settlement. Given that the Minister has some difficulty in grasping the serious roadblock that such a stance may be causing when the problem is expressed to her in plain English, I put it to her in a language that she promotes ad nauseam? Fág an bealach. Minister. Clear the way, and settle the issue now. The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I say immediately that I find myself very much in sympathy with the motion. I regret that the dispute has continued for so long, and I do not want to see any disruption caused to our children’s education. I recognise fully the vital role that classroom assistants perform, and I take this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to them once again. I have visited many schools since my appointment and have seen at first hand the commitment that so many dedicated individuals in our education system show. Classroom assistants play an invaluable role. They are a hugely positive force in the lives of the children whom they serve. They work with some of our most-vulnerable young people, including those who have a range of special needs. They provide much-needed general support in every primary 1 class, and in those primary 2 classes in areas where attainment is low and social deprivation far too high. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Minister give way? Ms Ruane: I will not, no. For me, there is absolutely no doubt about the value of the role that classroom assistants play in the education of our children and young people. It was only right, therefore, that a proper mechanism be put in place to ensure that the work that classroom assistants carry out was evaluated fairly and consistently, and to ensure that jobs of equal value received equal pay. That was the purpose of the job evaluation scheme. Nuair a phléigh muid an t-ábhar seo an uair dheireanach ar 19 Meitheamh, ghlac mé leis go raibh an scéal ag dul ar aghaidh ar feadh ró-fhada agus gur gá é a réiteach gan mhoill. Rinne mé amach labhairt leis na boird agus leis na ceardchumainn faoin ábhar. When we last debated the issue of classroom assistants, on 19 June 2007, I accepted that the dispute had gone on far too long. I undertook to speak to the boards and the trade unions to urge them to reach a speedy resolution to the dispute. After that debate, I met the boards on 21 June and the unions on 29 June. I made it absolutely clear to both sides that, in the interests of the classroom assistants and the children with whom they work, they needed to redouble their efforts in order to reach a fair and equitable settlement. I told them that that had to be done quickly, in order to enable the funding to be released into people’s pay packets as soon as possible. In the period since, I have keep abreast of the situation, through briefings from my officials and through a substantial volume of correspondence, some from classroom assistants who are caught up in the dispute. Negotiations between the boards and the unions continued, with numerous meetings being held between the management side and union joint secretaries. Board chief executives and senior union officials have met to discuss the issue. More recently, the boards have written to all classroom assistants to explain the current position on the evaluation of their posts. A LeasCheann Comhairle, during the debate on 19 June 2007, both Members in whose name the motion stands rose to speak. Hansard records that, with reference to the funding that has been made available to the boards to resolve the dispute, Mr Basil McCrea said: “I support the motion, because it is not for me to say what is equitable and what is not.” — [Official Report, Vol 22, No 13, p553, col 1]. Really, does anyone know what that means? I do not, and, after listening to the Member today, I am fairly certain that he does not know either. It seems to me that, on 19 June, the Member had no understanding of the dispute and no idea how to resolve it. Judging from his contribution today, I believe that he still has no idea. I welcome the opportunity to shine a light on the dispute. It is great to have the concerns of a group of working-class women debated in the Assembly. One might think that they will have been greatly heartened to witness Members almost trip over themselves to express their support and solidarity for those poor women. They could be forgiven a little scepticism, because, in June, those very same Members, with a few notable exceptions, did the same, but when the press had packed up and gone home, those Members did nothing. I have laid out for the Assembly what I have done. The classroom assistants should know, however, if they do not know already, that, with the exception of people such as Paul Butler of Sinn Féin, Dawn Purvis of the PUP and one or two Members from the DUP and from the SDLP, not one of the other Members who spoke so passionately today, or on 19 June, has approached me on behalf of the classroom assistants. Not one. I have received scores of letters and questions for written and oral answer on every other issue. Members have shown their prejudice against the Irish language; I have heard the comments. Shame on you. Do you not understand that classroom assistants work in all schools, including Irish-language schools? What you need to do is to forget the prejudice against the Irish language, stop all that nonsense and start dealing with equality. We have heard about equality in this House. Sammy Wilson — [Interruption.] You never miss an opportunity to show prejudice and bias against the Irish language. Your concern about gender equality is touching. Every time that I rise in the House, I am attacked, and other women who are Members are treated very badly when they rise to speak. Therefore, I hope that the classroom assistants understand how important gender equality is to your party. Sammy Wilson, the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, is present today. What has that Committee actually done? How many times has it met with the classroom assistants? It will meet with them soon, we are told. It is only three and a half months since it saddled that particular high horse, so the Committee should be given a bit of time. Sammy’s concern for the working class is touching. Sammy, if you really want to deal with working-class issues and disadvantage, you need to open your eyes and look at the debate on academic selection. Sammy, you are sitting back to front, looking back to the good old days, while everyone else looks towards the future. Those are the same people who, unlike their Conservative counterparts in Britain or even their friends in the Flat Earth Society, would like to retain the 11-plus for the benefit of the working class. That is what Sammy Wilson tells us. Members should check out the percentage of free school meals in grammar schools compared to that in secondary schools — [Interruption.] Mr K Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ms Ruane: No. You will see where the working class — Mr Deputy Speaker: Point of order. Mr K Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not incumbent on the Minister, when replying in a debate, to stick to the points covered during that debate rather than comment on other issues? Mr Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister. However, I ask the Minister to make her remarks through the Chair, please. Ms Ruane: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issues are linked; they are the same issues. They concern working-class children and those with special needs. Sammy Wilson tells us that if he does not get his way, a breakaway education system for those grammar schools that cannot contemplate change will be set up. Again, he is obviously concerned about the working class. Will working-class people be able to afford the fees? I will not allow children’s education to become a political football. If any Member wishes, they can work with me on devising and implementing the programme for change that is needed if we are to create a modern, fit-for-purpose and world-class education system. I will not stint on my endeavours to facilitate those Members. If, on the other hand, I see Members posturing week after week, grandstanding for the media and trying to score cheap political points, regardless of the damage that that would do to the morale or well-being of children, parents and staff, I would not hesitate to expose them. Having said that, I am concerned that since June’s debate on the matter, and, despite my meetings with management and unions, there has been no real progress in finding a resolution. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: I was asked about the meetings that have occurred. Meetings between chief executives, board and union officials took place on Friday, and there was a further meeting with management representatives this morning. Having listened to what has been said today, I plan to intervene. I am now calling on the employing authorities to implement the new grades as swiftly as possible in order that, as a result of the systematic job evaluation process that was carried out, those valuable members of staff receive the rates of pay to which they are entitled. Classroom assistants have already had to wait an unacceptable length of time. We must get the money to them that they deserve. Equally, there is nothing to be gained from the proposed industrial action. That can only disrupt children’s education and result in loss of income for the staff concerned. I urge classroom assistants to call off the proposed strike. Mrs M Bradley: Will the Minister give way? Ms Ruane: No. I do not have time, and I have a lot more to say. I am also calling on the employers and the unions to meet today to resolve equitably the remaining differences. Although that would conclude the matter, which is essential, not least because of the interests of the staff concerned, I do not regard it as the ultimate solution. The issues that have arisen are part of a bigger picture. We need to take a wider and more fundamental look at our approach to the planning and management of our schools’ education workforce. We should examine the roles and responsibilities of all the main groups and maximise the contributions of each so that pupils get the benefit of the skills and expertise that all teaching staff bring. I have asked officials to draw up the terms of reference for such a review, with the aim of making progress as soon as is practicable. Go raibh maith agat. Mr S Wilson: It is nice to see that the Minister, who did not have any time to accept interventions from the SDLP or anyone else, was able to spend 30% of her time attacking me about my attitude to, among other matters, academic selection, the working class, the Irish language, equality and the treatment of women. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way? Mr S Wilson: No; I only have five minutes. I will not give way, nor will I attack the Member, so she need not worry. The Minister says that she wants to deal seriously with this issue, yet she spends 30% of her speech addressing her comments to another Member on subjects that are not being discussed. If I were as paranoid as Mr Butler, I would think that she were carrying out a witch hunt. However, I am not paranoid. I am quite happy for her to make those sorts of comments. That is what we expect to happen here. However, I will not take lectures from the Minister that Members on this side of the House are not concerned, or are expressing only pseudoconcern, about the matter. Mr McCrea, a Member for Lagan Valley, tabled the motion because, in spite of the promise that the Minister made on 19 June — which was over three months ago — when she thought that the matter was urgent, it has dragged on and has still not been resolved. She cannot point the finger at the Committee for Education and the Assembly and ask what they have done. We are not the employers. We are not even the paymasters. The Minister is the Minister — she is the one who is responsible. We have no role in the negotiations. 2.15 pm That is one of the reasons why I do not accept the |