NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Monday 8 October 2007 Ministerial Statement: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Notice Question: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to address a matter that has just arisen. This morning, Members received in their pigeonholes a letter from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) — signed by both Dr Paisley and Mr McGuinness — that advises of their proposed process in respect of the appointment of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister now wish to re-advertise that position. Is it in order, on a matter of heightened public interest, if not concern — and on a matter that has been debated far and wide among the Northern Ireland public — that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister has come to the Floor of the House to make a statement and to take questions from Members? Is it in order that the height of the respect for this Chamber of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is such as to send a minute to Members, rather than to come to the Floor — Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have listened to the point of order. I shall take the matter to the Business Committee and report back to the Assembly as soon as possible. At the sitting on 24 September 2007, when I announced the retirement of the Clerk to the Assembly, Mr Arthur Moir, I reported that the Assembly Commission was taking steps to ensure the continuity of service to the Assembly. In that regard, the Commission has asked me to announce the appointment of Mrs Carol Devon as interim Clerk and Chief Executive with effect from 17 October 2007. Mrs Devon is currently employed as Director of Access and Information at the Scottish Parliament and previously served the Parliament as Director of Clerking and Reporting. I know that the House wishes Mrs Devon every success as she joins the Northern Ireland Assembly for a short period. Further Education Lecturers’ Pay Dispute Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Employment and Learning that he wishes to make a statement on the current position of the further education lecturers’ pay dispute. The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): Today, I am pleased to announce the appointment by my Department of an independent adviser to facilitate an agreement in the further education lecturers’ pay dispute. Sir Joseph Pilling, a former permanent under-secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, has agreed to act as the independent adviser in the dispute. Sir Joseph is eminently qualified for the role, having had experience of industrial relations in the Department of Health and in the prison service of England and Wales. The terms of reference for Sir Joseph, which have been agreed by college employers and the lecturers’ unions are to explore the position of each interested party including, in particular, the employers and unions; and, using the insights that this provides, to facilitate a settlement of the dispute, which is acceptable to all interested parties. Any settlement arising from the study will be compliant with the Government’s public-sector pay policy, the continued application of which in Northern Ireland has been endorsed by the Executive. It is in the interests of all concerned to get this process under way as soon as possible, in the hope of an early resolution, perhaps by the end of 2007. This initiative has arisen from my recent discussions with college employers and with lecturers’ unions on what can be done to bring to an end this long-standing pay dispute, which is starting to impact on students’ education. It is clear to me that discussion between both parties needs to resume as soon as possible. A resolution to the problem will come about only through discussion and dialogue. The appointment of the independent adviser, with his expertise and independent status, will facilitate this process. In the meantime, and without prejudice to any further negotiations on pay, I have suggested to the unions that lecturers accept the pay offer for 2006-07. Management is also in a position to make a similar basic pay offer to lecturers for 2007-08 as part of a two-year pay deal. If the offers were accepted by the unions, the pay increases could be in the pockets of lecturers by Christmas. I am convinced that the appointment of Sir Joseph Pilling as independent adviser is a positive development in the dispute and that his work will be pivotal in helping to remove the impasse that currently exists in the negotiations. With goodwill on all sides, I hope that it will be possible to bring an end to the dispute and to restore normal service in colleges for the benefit of all concerned. The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Ms S Ramsey): Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. I would like to say a few words on behalf of the Committee. The issue came to the attention of the Committee at its first meeting on 16 May 2007 and has been on its agenda, in some shape or form, since then. The Committee has met the employer and trade union sides and is supportive of the principle of pay parity. The Minister has been helpful in keeping the Committee up to date, and I thank him for that. He has contacted me personally on several occasions in order to keep me up to date so that I can, in turn, update Committee members. The Committee has worked hard to understand the dispute and, in particular, to assess the implications of the public-sector pay policy. Despite the restrictions within which the Committee is working, I stress that it views this dispute as being extremely damaging, and everyone must work together to ensure that it is resolved. The Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss this ministerial statement. However, there is universal support for the renewed negotiations, and I hope that there will be a fresh impetus on both sides to find a clear way forward on this critical issue. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us when he expects the new round of negotiations to get under way and whether he will continue to keep the Committee fully up to date about progress and, we hope, outcomes? Go raibh maith agat. Sir Reg Empey: The Committee, in order to fulfil its obligations, must be given as much information as possible, and I have endeavoured to do that. The Department for Employment and Learning will seek the help of the Committee in all these matters to ensure that students in our further education colleges receive the best possible service. It must be remembered that those colleges form a significant part of our economic development strategy, which is why the issue is important to the Department. The Member specifically asked when the negotiations would start. As soon as the debate on my statement has finished, the first meeting will take place between Sir Joseph Pilling and officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), and he will then meet me at lunchtime. Tomorrow, Sir Joseph hopes to meet officials from the Department for Employment and Learning, and the employer and trade union sides. Therefore, the negotiations are getting off to a quick start. In my statement, I said that I would like the process to be completed by the end of the year, but I do not want to prescribe that time frame unnecessarily. If more time is needed, that will be fine. Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his commitment throughout this process. I also thank him for keeping the Committee fully apprised about any ongoing talks. Given Sir Joseph Pilling’s remit, will the Minister tell us whether Sir Joseph will be in a position to speak to Treasury officials to see whether that impasse can be broken? Sir Reg Empey: DFP is the main link in the relationship between the Northern Ireland Administration and the Executive. As soon as the debate is finished, Sir Joseph will meet DFP officials, with whom he will discuss the mechanics of how we might engage with the Treasury. A report from the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay referred to “efficiencies”, but we do not know exactly what that means. There are also some technical matters to be discussed. Without protocol being broken, DFP officials will be able to facilitate a channel being opened to the Treasury to find out exactly what is meant by the word “efficiencies”. 12.15 pm Mr McClarty: I thank the Minister for his statement this morning and congratulate him on giving this issue the priority that it undoubtedly deserves. I ask him to gaze into his crystal ball and outline what he thinks this might mean for the industrial action being taken by the lecturers. Sir Reg Empey: The Member will be aware that there have been about seven strike days over the past 15 months or thereabouts. On 18 September, University and College Union (UCU) members and their colleagues wrote to the employers advising that they were preparing to step up industrial action. At the moment, the action is taking the form of not providing the college authorities with information on attendance at certain classes, and various other matters. The letter announcing the potential escalation of the industrial action highlighted matters such as non-compliance with the education maintenance allowance procedures, which would impact on the allowances being paid to students. I have indicated great concern at that proposal. In the notes that I have been dealing with recently, I have said that I hope that, bearing in mind that the unions have to consult their members and their branches, when those talks commence, the best possible circumstances in which they could proceed would be in the absence of industrial action. I hope, therefore, that that action can be suspended once the union members are absolutely clear that the Department — and, I am quite sure, this House — is taking the process seriously. I would not have asked a senior person of Sir Joseph’s standing to come into this if we were not taking it seriously. I hope that, after consultation, the members of the trade unions will see fit to suspend their actions. However, that will be a matter for them to discuss with the independent adviser. I look forward to an early decision on the matter. Mr Attwood: I welcome the Minister’s statement and his presence on the Floor of the House this morning, in contrast to one or two of his Executive colleagues. I note that, in response to Mr Spratt’s question about a facility whereby Sir Joseph Pilling may have access to the guardians of pay policy in London, it is my sense that, in the fullness of time, those guardians will have to bend on this issue when it comes to pay policy in the North. Given that the terms of reference are silent on the issue of pay parity for the further education sector in Northern Ireland, and given that this is at the heart of the dispute, will the Minister confirm that it is his wish that the issue of pay parity be now met? Sir Reg Empey: It is inconceivable to me that that issue would not be first and foremost in the minds of the trade unions when they meet Sir Joseph and the employers. In relation to the first point, about the Member for South Belfast, all Members know that there are certain protocols in dealing with the Treasury. However, officials from DFP have been extremely helpful to my Department throughout the process, and I am not anticipating any difficulties. It is important that people do not go off at a tangent and leave DFP unsighted. We are having very open discussions, and we are not confronting any difficulties. Those who are responsible for making and implementing the policy in London will be fully involved and consulted, and questions will be asked. Pay parity is the issue. However, there are wider issues here. If we go down that route, terms and conditions will start to come into it, and there are considerable differences there. I assure the Member that all those issues will be discussed. The terms of reference have — quite deliberately — not been drawn up in a prescriptive manner. I am not trying to rule out anything; I am trying to create the circumstances in which members of trade unions and the employers can bring all the issues to the table. Parity will be one of them. However, there are two sides to that coin: the money side and the terms and conditions. The terms of reference are such — and were designed as such — that they will allow a free and open discussion to take place between the two sides, under the chairmanship of the independent adviser. Ms Lo: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I very much welcome the appointment of Sir Joseph Pilling. It is of great urgency and importance that this matter be resolved as quickly as possible. I welcome the Minister’s effort and commitment in trying to facilitate a meeting between the employer and the employees. Essentially, as other Members have said, it is about trying to put pressure on, and work with, the Treasury to resolve the UK public-pay restrictions in Northern Ireland. At a time when the new colleges are up and running, and with the start of the new term, it is vital that Members support further education lecturers in their demand for fair pay. Sir Reg Empey: I thank the Member for her contribution. As she said, the colleges have been amalgamated to form new ones, and it would have been my hope that those could have started off, on 1 August 2007, with the lecturers, on whom we depend to deliver the policy, feeling happy and comfortable with their terms and conditions. That has not been the case. However, given the situation as it stands, I felt that it was important not to leave the issues to fester and that some initiative was required to move the matter forward. The Treasury has a national policy on public-sector pay, which the Executive have endorsed. Again, in the debate on this issue on 26 June 2007, I made it clear that it was the most bizarre industrial dispute that I had ever been involved with. Everyone wanted to settle it, everyone had agreed to settle it, the money to settle it was there, but it could not be settled because of a national pay policy. That has created huge frustrations. As long as that frustration is there, combined with ongoing industrial action, there is always the risk that an event will take place, the employer will take action, and the dispute will escalate, with the upping of industrial action. Although it is true that the Treasury sets the policies, it does not have to deal with the downstream consequences. That is the difficulty that we face. That is why I said earlier that I hoped that, on a without-prejudice basis, the lecturers could accept the money that has been offered, if for no other reason than to put it in their pockets this side of Christmas. That would not constrain them —it is a without-prejudice offer — in the event that there were to be a change in public-sector pay policy. I hope that the lecturers will accept the offer. It is important, however, as the Member said, to ensure that there is the best possible atmosphere and commitment in the new colleges, if we are to get the best possible result for the people we represent. Mr Newton: Like my colleagues, I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is an issue that needs to be resolved, and not only in the context of the further education lecturers; it is important to the economy of Northern Ireland. I note that Sir Joseph has been appointed as an independent adviser. As the Minister stated, Sir Joseph is eminently well qualified for the role and obviously enjoys the Minister’s confidence. However, will the Minister tell us whether his Department will be bound by the report’s findings when it is published? Sir Reg Empey: Standing Orders do not bind anyone to act on the findings of any report. However, public-sector pay policy is the overarching framework within which we must work. We must also be aware that a determination that was issued in February 2007 is on the record already. Having said that, there is a certain lack of clarity in some of the comments that have been made about efficiencies. I do not know exactly what creating efficiencies would mean in practice. A fresh proposal or approach could be made to the Committee for Employment and Learning if circumstances were to change. Although I will not be bound by the report, and I do not think that any party to the dispute will be, if we were not taking the issue seriously, we would not bring in a senior career civil servant of Sir Joseph’s standing. Moreover, we would not go through the whole exercise, if we were going to cast aside the study’s findings lightly. I emphasise that the point of appointing someone of such standing is to send a clear signal to employers, unions and the public-sector pay bodies that we are taking the matter seriously and that everybody should look carefully at the outcome of the study. I am not legally bound by the study, but I intend to return to the House as soon as is practicable with a response to it. At that stage, whether I make another statement, whether we have a debate or whether the Committee intervenes, I want to ensure that Members are as fully involved in the matter as they have been heretofore. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and for his continued efforts to resolve the dispute. The Minister’s statement says that the settlement must be: “compliant with the Government’s public-sector pay policy”. That creates the perception that the unions have agreed to that policy. My understanding is that they would oppose any settlement that is restricted within the parameters of public-sector pay policy. Will the Minister also clarify whether the terms of reference are such that the independent adviser will explore, if requested, the basis on which lecturers here belong to the only group in the educational sector that falls under the public-sector pay policy? Sir Reg Empey: It seems inevitable that that fact will be addressed. I held meetings on either 7 or 14 September with representatives both of the trade unions and the employers, and when I met with the unions, national officials came to the Department along with local officials. Therefore, I met with a high-level delegation. They discussed the situation in Wales, and they mentioned all the issues that the House debated before the summer. As I said, the terms of reference are as broad and as open as I can make them. Notes are attached to those terms of reference, and they are essentially statements from me, but I understand the unions’ position on public-sector pay policy. I am not trying to force them into accepting or endorsing any particular policy, but we all live in the real world. Therefore, I must say — the Executive have endorsed this — that we are bound by current policy. 12.30 pm However, I am unclear — as, it appears, is everyone else — over some explanations of what the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay meant by “efficiencies”. I am sure that Sir Joseph will look at that. I am sure that the honourable Member knows that there is no way in which trade unions are going to meet with employers and Sir Joseph and not raise his point about how their position compares with that of other workers in the same sector. It is precisely the type of forum in which those points can be raised. Although Sir Joseph is described as an independent adviser, he will also be an interested party, as will my Department and DFP. We are trying to attach some gravitas and weight to Sir Joseph’s role so that, when he comes up with his recommendations, everybody, including the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay, will take them seriously. I have left the terms of reference, which have been accepted, as broad as possible. Let us allow the negotiations to take place in the best possible atmosphere that we can create, so that there will exist at least some possibility of a successful outcome. If we continue with the trench warfare that we have been in for the past lot of months, we will get nowhere, while the students and the colleges will continue to suffer. The employees are unhappy, and that does not make for the implementation of a successful policy in the further education sector. That must be self-evident. I hope that the objective of the initiative will not be to restrict people in what they can say and what issues they can raise, but, nevertheless, I am obliged to set out the context in which we are operating. Mr McCausland: I welcome the Minister’s statement. There is widespread interest in, and concern about, this issue. Will the Minister confirm whether he has discussed the pay offer for 2006-07 and 2007-08 with the trade unions, and, if so, will he outline their response? Sir Reg Empey: The Member will be aware that the actual pay offer for 2006-07 and 2007-08 is primarily a matter for the employers and the employees to agree. It would not be normal for the Department to be involved in those discussions — but for one issue. When it became clear that this was within the scope of public-sector pay policy, the Department had a role to play. Our role was to ensure that that policy was adhered to. If not for that, we would have played no role in the industrial relations between the employers and the trade unions. That is how we got into the position that we are in. The Department, along with the unions and employers, made a submission to the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay at the end of 2006. That submission was subsequently adjudicated on in February 2007. Hitherto, we would not have been party to the actual negotiation of terms and conditions and pay. Our role was created only because of the existence of the public-sector pay policy. That is how and why we became involved. We have not been involved in the minutiae of negotiations — that is between the unions and the employers — but their agreement triggered a reference to the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay, and that is where we came in. Both sides were agreeable to paying the agreed offer. The Department had no anxieties over paying it, but when the policy was imposed, and it was deemed that the offer had to be referred, that was the point at which we arrived at the position in which we currently find ourselves. I hope that the pay offers that have been made can be accepted on the basis that I outlined earlier — at least for the current year — without prejudice to any subsequent change in attitude by the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay. Mr Gardiner: First, I commend the Minister for his swift action in trying to resolve this difficulty. Would he be prepared, if invited, to help the Minister of Education to sort out the classroom assistants’ dispute? Secondly, under the pay policy, what scope is there to improve lecturers’ pay? Sir Reg Empey: That is what might be called a leading question, Mr Speaker. Are those still allowed in the House? I will deal with Mr Gardiner’s second point first. As I tried to explain, at present, the scope for improving lecturers’ pay is limited, and DFP has been interpreting what exists. A referral to the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay is triggered only if DFP believes that a proposal exceeds the limit. DFP determined that measure last year — hence the referral. Pay percentages may increase in some circumstances, such as when there is clear evidence of a lack of retention of lecturers. Even though there were pockets where that was so, it was not the case generally, so the Sub-Committee on Public Sector Pay ruled out that option. The Sub-Committee will want to explore what scope there is for efficiencies, and how that is interpreted and understood not only by DFP but by the Treasury. Those areas must be explored. I say to the honourable Member that we must wait and see. Although I do not want to overstate the position, I want to ensure that the negotiations take place in the best possible atmosphere. The Member’s first question was whether I was prepared to help my colleague the Minister of Education to resolve the classroom assistants’ dispute. I will confine my remarks to saying that that is a matter for her, Mr Speaker. Mr Durkan: I join other Members in thanking the Minister for his statement, his wider efforts and the initiative that he has taken. Does the Minister agree that lecturers are, through their work, providing benefits and key services not only to students but, in many instances, to communities, community organisations, other public services and, increasingly, businesses and small businesses through the Further Education Means Business review programme. Even though the Minister mentioned the handful of days of industrial disputes in the past couple of years, one must remember that lecturers have delivered positively on that agenda and have delivered positively on college mergers. It is in that context that lecturers’ frustrations must be fully understood and appreciated. The Minister referred to the pay offer for last year and this year. He said that it could be in people’s pockets by Christmas. Will the Minister inform the House of the sums involved so that we might be able to understand their relevance to the lecturers’ frustrations? Does the Minister agree that the exercise that Sir Joseph Pilling will be undertaking is similar to the hole in dear Liza’s bucket? No matter what the unions and employers say, it comes back to the issue of the perverse adherence to public-sector pay policy. It is a self-contained grievance and anomaly, which should be resolved on its own terms, without threatening any wider run on public-sector pay policy. Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful to the Member for his comments. He has a keen interest in the matter and has already expressed concern to me in correspondence on a number of occasions in recent weeks. First, I accept, agree with and endorse his comments that the lecturers provide a beneficial service not only to the colleges but to the wider community. I am also pleased that he mentioned the link with business, because that is becoming increasingly important and significant. It is unfortunate that that relationship is growing against a backdrop of an industrial relations dispute. That business link provides an even greater incentive to get the dispute resolved as quickly as possible. The Member is correct that the dear-Liza-and-her-bucket scenario is an anomaly, but we have to examine some of the reasons for that. It is an anomaly because, as a Member for West Belfast Mr Butler said, lecturers are the only educational workers that are caught in this dispute. Why is that? Has there been a structural change as to who negotiates their terms and conditions and how that is done? The link between teachers and lecturers in Wales, for instance, will also have to be examined. If we get involved in a headbutting session with the Treasury, the Member knows better than most in the House that that will lead us nowhere. Therefore, we must keep as many options open as possible. The offer for 2006-07 was in the region of 3·49%. There was a further cost of living offer of 2% for 2007-08, and other adjustments made that slightly higher. However, bearing in mind that that would be applicable from September 2006, quite a lot of back payment is available. There is, perhaps, an opportunity for immediate benefit without people having to accept an offer that, should public-sector pay policy change, would leave them trapped. That was not the intention for 2007-08. I apologise to Mr Butler — a Member for Lagan Valley — for misnaming his constituency. That is the current position, and I thank the Member for Foyle for his ongoing interest in the matter. Mr Ross: I also welcome the Minister’s statement, but I seek clarification on one point. The terms of reference set for Sir Joseph are: “To explore the position of each interested party, including, in particular, the employers and unions”. Who are the other interested parties and what has been their role thus far? Sir Reg Empey: As I define them, the interested parties are, of course, the employers, the unions, the Department for Employment and Learning, DFP, and the independent adviser. Everyone who is interested and can effect some change is involved, and, obviously, DFP will have a particular interest in interpreting and discussing some of the details with the Treasury. I am trying to keep involved everyone who is essential to resolving this problem. The Department has two interests. From a policy point of view, it wants the sector to deliver for our economic, and other, benefits. However, the Department also has a specific role to play in ensuring that public-sector pay policy is adhered to. Ultimately, Sir Joseph Pilling will be an interested party, and his appointment gives him some gravitas and status so that when people speak to him, or when he interfaces with Government at whatever level, he will have a real focus on reaching an outcome. I hope that that explains the position. Mr B McCrea: I commend the Minister for the innovative and creative way in which he has sought to tackle a problem that has frustrated us all. I note the comments of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning that we have all wrestled for quite some time with this issue. I guess that we are all still getting it in the neck — if that is not unparliamentary language — from people who are asking us to please do something. Given that several disputes are currently ongoing, will the Minister tell the House whether what he is doing with regard to this dispute can be used as a model for resolution? 12.45 pm Sir Reg Empey: The Member’s last point has an echo of the question asked by my colleague from Upper Bann Mr Gardiner, but maybe I am reading too much into it. There is no doubt that any industrial action in the public service is of great concern to everybody in the House, and, regrettably, industrial action is taking place in several areas of the public sector. I do not know the details of all the other disputes, and I am not sure whether this model would be applicable to them. However, the model is there, and if anybody wishes to ask me about it, I will be happy to make any suggestions or make available any information that the Department has. The Member for Lagan Valley Mr McCrea made the point about the frustration that Members have felt for some months — particularly those on the Committee. That frustration is also felt in the Department and everywhere, because everybody wants the dispute settled. The Department thought that it was settled: the money is there to settle it, and there is universal agreement that it should be paid. However, Government are often more complicated than we would wish, and I am left in the middle of public-sector pay policy. The Department must look creatively to see whether all the issues that have been raised can be addressed. I cannot promise Members that I will come back to the House at Christmas or in the new year with a glowing report and waving a piece of paper that says that the matter is settled. I do not know the answer. However, the past few months have got us nowhere. We are stuck in a rut, going round in circles saying that we want to pay the money and being told that we cannot. We have to see whether there is something that we can do. That is why we have this place — so that we can try to do things a bit differently on the local scene. It is an anomaly, and the Member for Foyle Mr Durkan has drawn our attention to that. I am anxious to see whether matters can be fixed in some way, and this is a possible way. There are no guarantees, but at least we will give it a good try. All the relevant parties are around the table. We had excellent support from the Assembly during the debate in the summer, support from the Committee and support today. We are sending out a clear message to the parties involved and it is up to them to go away and see whether they can find a creative way of dealing with the matter within the context that I set out. I hope and expect that that will happen, but we will have to return to the matter at another date. I look forward to that opportunity. Mr Cree: I also welcome the Minister’s initiative and the attempt to break the logjam. This dispute has been running for some time, and we will all be glad to see a satisfactory solution. However, the question that I was minded to ask has just been answered, and I am happy with that. Report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel on Workplace 2010 Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Storey): I beg to move That this Assembly takes note of the first Report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel on Workplace 2010 and the Location of Public Sector Jobs, and the response to the Report by the Department of Finance and Personnel. At its first meeting on 16 May 2007, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed to include in its work programme up to the summer recess an initial scrutiny of Workplace 2010 and the separate, but related, issue of public-sector jobs location. Mindful that decisions by the Minister and the Executive were pending on both issues, the Committee undertook that scrutiny between 6 June and 4 July 2007 and published a report of its findings. The timing was unfortunate in that it did not provide an opportunity to debate the report in the Assembly before the summer recess. However, the Committee’s subsequent decision to publish a special report on the DFP response to the recommendations now provides such an opportunity. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Workplace 2010 is a major element of the Civil Service reform programme, for which DFP is responsible. The project’s stated aim is: “to develop a strategic and affordable solution to the urgent accommodation problems facing the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) office estate.” In a separate initiative, in January 2007, DFP commenced a public consultation on ‘Guiding Principles for the Location of Public Sector Jobs in Northern Ireland’. Although the Committee recognises that jobs location is distinct from Workplace 2010, it has considered both issues in tandem. That approach reflects a general concern that Workplace 2010 has the potential to reduce the Executive’s freedom to determine the future location of public-sector jobs. In scrutinising the Workplace 2010 project, the Committee focused on the best-practice approach to procurement and on the lessons learned from existing private finance initiative projects, both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK. On the issue of the location of public-sector jobs, the Committee gave initial consideration to the development of a strategic dispersal policy aimed at maximising and realising potential economic and social benefits throughout Northern Ireland. That included consideration of the scope and constraints for dispersal, approaches being taken elsewhere and the relevance of existing cross-cutting policies. The Committee received oral and written evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the National Audit Office, and the Northern Ireland Court Service. In addition, the Committee was able to draw on a range of published sources, including an inquiry report into public-private partnerships by its predecessor Committee and a report by the Committee on the Programme for Government into Workplace 2010 and public-sector jobs location. I shall focus, first, on Workplace 2010. From the evidence received, the Committee made a range of key conclusions and recommendations that are designed to establish necessary safeguards and assurances before the Minister and the Executive make the final decisions on the project. I want to draw Members’ attention to the Committee’s key conclusions and recommendations on Workplace 2010 and to the Department’s response in each instance. At the outset, I should point out that the Committee gave its full support to the strategic objectives of the project, which aimed to enable the Northern Ireland Civil Service to transform the efficiency and effectiveness of the public services that it delivers, provide accommodation in which staff are proud to work and safeguard funding for priority front-line services. The Committee expressed concerns, however, with some of the findings from the initial, “health-check”, review of the Clare House pathfinder project for Workplace 2010, and awaits the outcome of the more extensive post-occupancy evaluation. The Department has advised the Committee that the results of that evaluation will be made available in December 2007. The Committee recommended that, when finalising the business case, the Department should give due regard to concerns about the use of public-sector comparators and that it should broadly, and strategically, reassess procurement options. In its response, the Department gave a commitment that it will reassess procurement options when finalising the business case and will ensure that benefits, risks, uncertainties and costs are fully appraised. The Committee considers that the acceptance of upfront capital receipts that are substantially lower than the full market value of properties is a high-risk aspect of Workplace 2010. The Department has recognised the concerns of the Committee on that issue and has given an assurance that a significant amount of time and effort is being attributed to the commercial aspects of the contract. The Committee further recommended that the properties to be included in Workplace 2010 should be valued by an independent commercial valuer in addition to the public-sector valuer, and that those valuations should be updated before the conclusion of negotiations. The Department has accepted the Committee’s recommendation and is making arrangements to identify an independent valuer to assess a representative number of properties, providing a benchmark report against which best and final offer bids can be assessed. The Committee also called for transparency in the establishment of the affordability model and the efficacy of financing arrangements for the total property private finance initiative option. In addition, the Committee believes that there should be greater transparency in relation to the long-term commitments arising from private finance initiatives in Northern Ireland, and to their impact on future budgetary flexibility and affordability. The Department has noted the findings and has provided assurance that, on the issue of transparency, a full audit trail on that project will be made available on budgetary transfers from Departments and financing arrangements in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Committee further recommended that if the Workplace 2010 project is to proceed on a private finance initiative basis, the Department should ensure that the full range of applicable best-practice approaches and lessons are applied in respect of the final business case, the final contract and contract-management arrangements. The Department has also accepted that recommendation and sought to assure the Committee that the programme has examined the recommendations of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee and related Treasury guidance on lessons learned. It has also sought to identify best practice from a range of projects, with a view to ensuring that the contract and the subsequent management arrangements reflect a best-in-class approach. Moreover, with regard to Workplace 2010, the Committee sought firm assurances from the Department that the final business case will be independently and objectively assessed, that that assessment will cover the robustness of the public-sector comparator, and that the final contract will provide for all necessary safeguards, including those identified in the report. The Department noted that recommendation and sought to assure the Committee that the need for an independent and objective assessment will be addressed through the Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review process, and the work of DFP Supply. Regarding the location of public-sector jobs, the Committee recommended that the Department and the wider Executive should develop an affirmative policy for the dispersal of public-sector jobs that ensures the capacity of the public sector to deliver, efficiently and effectively, a range of services through a substantial and sustainable approach, and, as a priority, implement it for the benefit of the whole of Northern Ireland. The Department has agreed with the Committee that it is important that a strategic approach is adopted. It also assured the Committee that the principles of achieving value for money and maximising social and economic benefits, in relation to the location of public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland, will remain a key feature in the final version of the framework to underpin decisions on the relocation of organisations under the review of public administration. The Department has also committed a time-bound review of policy on the location of public-sector jobs. That will provide the opportunity to conduct a thorough analysis of the short- and long-term costs and the benefits of dispersal, as well as how best to maximise the longer-term economic, social and environmental benefits from an affirmative dispersal policy. That policy review will also take on board the Committee’s call for lessons to be learned from experience of dispersal policies elsewhere, particularly in Scotland. The Committee sought further assurances that the final Workplace 2010 contract and projected costs do not militate against the future strategic decisions on the location of public-sector jobs. 1.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask Mr Storey to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Mr Storey: The Department responded by explaining that work is ongoing to develop a flexibility model for the “best and final offer” stage of the procurement that will not only secure a competitive price but also demonstrate best value for money and appropriate flexibility. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Committee’s report. There is no doubt that there is a need for efficiency and effectiveness in the way that public services are delivered. It is important to have modern working accommodation to provide that delivery. The report is important: it raises many questions about the efficiency of PFI, not least those issues identified by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. It is claimed that, in order to justify the PFI option, Departments have relied too heavily on the public-sector comparators, and that there should be a wider examination of all other alternatives before an assessment of value for money is made. The report has also raised important questions about the manner in which the long-term impact on the public purse has been assessed by the Department of Finance and Personnel. There are concerns that proper mechanisms are needed to allow for a form of continuous assessment, including an evaluation process throughout the life of the project, to ensure that value for money is obtained. The successful management and delivery of PFI projects in recent years has also caused concern. The Clare House project provides an example of how problems can arise which cause disruption to staff and to the service they provide to the public. There is a compelling case for the redeployment of Civil Service and public-sector jobs more equally across the North of Ireland. The Committee has examined the proposed PFI for Workplace 2010 in the wider context of the redeployment of Civil Service and public-sector jobs, and of the long-term impact on such desirable re-employment across the North should it go ahead as a PFI project in its current format. I welcome recent comments by the Minister of Finance and Personnel in relation to initiating a review of policy options on the location of public-sector jobs that would enable the Executive to come to an agreed approach on location policy in the North of Ireland. There is a need to create balanced local development throughout the North and to help kick-start local economies in line with equality and New TSN obligations. My party is concerned that Workplace 2010, as presently constituted, will merely copper-fasten the status quo and replicate current patterns of investment and disadvantage. That is unacceptable. Serious questions must be answered in relation to the whole issue of PFI projects. In effect, the taxpayer is being asked to fund guaranteed profits for private companies. As a result of Workplace 2010 in its current form, not only will the companies have significant profit at the end of the contract, they will still own the buildings — and they will be ready to repeat the contract again at the taxpayer’s expense. In short, it could serve the interests of the private corporations more than those of the general public. Therefore, it is vital that the contract specifications of any proposed PFI project be robust and effective to ensure value for money and to protect the public interest. Mr Beggs: The Ulster Unionist Party is committed to the provision of quality services in an efficient and effective manner. The objective to be achieved is quality public services. We have no ideological barriers as to how that can be achieved; however, we have concerns regarding the Workplace 2010 project that should be comprehensively addressed. The setting in which we find ourselves is significant. To be fair to the Minister, it is appropriate that Members take that into consideration. The Northern Ireland block grant is under significant pressure — greater pressure than I have previously been aware of. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the message I have been receiving from the Department is that the budget will be tight. There is not much money about. Where is the £1 billion dowry that we were promised before devolution? We face funding difficulties in upgrading hospitals, schools and water and transport infrastructures, as well as Civil Service office accommodation, which is often of poor quality. There is significant pressure to find ways to finance all that. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline how the new resource accounting procedures will affect the capital assets that are held by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The PFI project exposes the public service to considerable risks. At the end of a contract, there is the possibility of a monopoly situation. We have been told that there is a buy-back option, but what if the buildings in question are irreplaceable? How that may affect their value must be considered carefully. There is a risk that private-sector partners may make excessive profits if they decide to redevelop sites. How do we ensure that there is a satisfactory and legally enforceable clawback provision should that happen? Recently, the Public Accounts Committee heard evidence about how, in the past, the private sector has run rings around the public sector on occasion and made considerable profits. A cost will be incurred if adjustments are made to the contract mid-process, so it is important to have some built-in flexibility. Such a situation may be expensive to adjust as the developer may have a strong hand, so it must be carefully gauged. The risk of the developer, having taken ownership of the properties, going bust must be carefully examined to ensure that the project is not entirely funded by loans from large banks. Such an essentially unstable situation must be avoided at all costs. We cannot afford to have uncertain ownership of the buildings. I am still seeking clarification from the Minister of Finance and Personnel as to why newly refurbished buildings are being sold. I ask him to address the issue of jobs and benefits offices being sold, despite millions of pounds having been spent on them. I now turn to the Clare House pathfinder pilot project for Workplace 2010, which received a very poor rating of 3·9 out of 9 in the March 2007 report that was submitted to the Committee for Finance and Personnel. That rating is very worrying, particularly as it is for a brand-new building in a pathfinder project. I hope that there will be a much better pilot outcome before a decision is made. I remind Members that there is significant disparity in the location of Civil Service jobs. It is not simply an east-west issue. Parts of constituencies in the east of the Province have few Civil Service jobs; that applies irrespective of whether one measures those jobs by the total number of jobs located in an area or the number per percentage of the population who are economically active. Regrettably, parts of my constituency of East Antrim come out worst. It is important that our actions achieve a balance. There are considerable costs involved in relocating Civil Service jobs, but there are potential savings and benefits to the environment. When opportunities arise, they should be considered seriously. Mr O’Loan: As other Members have correctly stated, Workplace 2010 is a major proposal, for which the stakes are high. However, potential gains and associated risks are great, so the right decisions must be taken. I broadly welcome the objectives of the project; they seek to achieve quality accommodation that will be linked to quality service. Good accommodation ought to lead to good staff morale, and good buildings ought to be fit for purpose and linked to good service. I welcome the reference to flexible accommodation. I have concerns about the emphasis that has been put on open-plan designing, given that it is somewhat unproven as to whether that is always the best option. The objective is to have a smaller and more efficient property portfolio. Although everyone seeks efficiency, a smaller portfolio carries some risks as it might present barriers to decentralisation. There is no doubt, however, that major reform of the public-sector infrastructure is a worthy objective. Workplace 2010 is certainly a major step towards that. I welcome the specific objectives of local economic growth and flexibility of location, which tie in with the desire for the decentralisation of public-sector jobs. The warnings about public-sector comparators, which compare PFI with conventional procurement, must be taken seriously. The Westminster Public Accounts Committee refers to past comparators as having been given: “a spurious precision which is not justified by the uncertainties involved in their calculation”. In general, the Workplace 2010 report issues a heavy health warning to the Department of Finance and Personnel to be wary of the uncertainties of the process, to assess the risks, and to build in a high level of protection. There must be wariness of the beguiling attractions of a PFI solution. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee referred rightly to the trade-off between the amount of the upfront capital payment and the annual unitary charge. That must be calculated properly, otherwise there may be a great loss to the public sector that might be visible only later in the contract. The Committee has sought and obtained welcome reassurance on the independent valuation of assets. It has also taken comfort from the assurances of the independent gateway review of the entire process. The Committee believes that a significant amount has been learnt from past PFI errors. It is chastened — as the Assembly should be — by the awareness that officials will have undoubtedly come before elected representatives and assured them that all contingencies had been considered during the development of those subsequent PFI projects that turn out to be disasters. It is not always the case, however, that all contingencies have been considered. The scale of the contract and potential subcontracts is an important issue. There are many small businesses in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that local businesses are in a position to tender for subcontracts when they are awarded. I seek reassurance from the Minister on that. My party is committed to the decentralisation of public-sector jobs. It recognises that there must be a strategic approach to that that maximises local economic development and the quality of Government services. It is a complex issue that must be tackled properly, and I welcome steps that the Minister has taken to do so. The report rightly continues to stress the need for Workplace 2010 to have the flexibility to provide dispersal. When queried on that, departmental officials have said that that is very much part of the scheme. An advantage is that it is clearly costed. Northern Ireland can learn significantly from the Scottish experience on decentralisation. We must be conscious of Partenaire’s legal challenge. The Department currently seeks a further £0·6 million to cover potential legal costs, indicating the substantial blockage that could occur. In summary, I give a cautious go-ahead to the process. Dr Farry: Like other Members, I endorse the report from the Committee for Finance and Personnel. It is a valuable piece of research, and it is pleasing to see Committees bring detailed reports to the Assembly. Workplace 2010 is an important project that has major implications for the entire Northern Ireland Civil Service. Potentially, 20,000 employees could be affected. It is important that the Assembly takes seriously its responsibility to provide quality facilities for staff to work in and quality service for the public of Northern Ireland. It is also important that Members do not judge PFI as good or bad on an ideological basis, but rather on a case-by-case basis, in order to decide when its use is appropriate. 1.15 pm This project is of a huge scale and is the largest PFI project to date in Northern Ireland. It is also one of the largest PFI projects to be undertaken in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it carries major consequences. Undoubtedly, just as we learn lessons from elsewhere, people elsewhere will seek to learn from how we in Northern Ireland approach the matter. I emphasis the importance of flexibility in what we seek to do with the contract. Mr Lunn has referred to the issue of what will now become subcontractors. A wide range of businesses in Northern Ireland have been contractors to the Civil Service. Now, in the single-contract approach, their only hope for business is to become subcontractors. There is concern that they may no longer have the access to work that they formerly had. We must be conscious of becoming locked in to particular budgets — such as sustaining a certain level of maintenance costs relating to the actual implementation of any overall contract. I am thinking, in particular, of an extremely tight fiscal situation where Departments have to make efficiencies. If we are locked into a contract with respect to certain costs, there could be a danger that efficiencies will be sought disproportionately from front-line services, to the detriment of service delivery to the people of Northern Ireland. Again, we must be conscious of that concern. I am wary of the timing of the Workplace 2010 contract and the Executive’s evolving policy on the dispersal of jobs. Since this report was drafted, the Minister has made it clear that the Executive will bring forward that policy in the next year. In his last appearance on the Floor of the Assembly, the Minister made it clear that decisions on the policy will largely be in place by the time the contract has been finalised. Perhaps we need to go a little further than that and ensure that the final contract is entirely informed by the Assembly’s wishes as regards to job dispersal. Otherwise, the cost involved in making contract variations later on might outweigh the savings gained by the Assembly — in the short term — from the early implementation of the contract. Some detailed financial analysis must be done on the pros and cons of the matter to ensure that the Assembly finds the best balance and ensures value for money for the people of Northern Ireland. With reference to job dispersal, I feel bound to refer to the situation of Bangor — and I make no apologies for doing so. While there is no formal policy in place for job dispersal, under the current proposals Bangor will see a negative dispersal of jobs because Department of Finance and Personnel staff and Department of Education (DE) staff will be further concentrated in Belfast. That will have major implications for the local economy in Bangor. It will account for large job losses — with detrimental effects for local contractors — as the Civil Service is currently the largest employer in Bangor. It will also add further burdens to the road network, which is already chock-a-block, and runs against the whole spirit of sustainability. That loss of jobs is opposed by the local workforce. I stress that as many as 500 civil servants are currently on a waiting list to relocate to Bangor. The situation, in which Bangor is set to lose jobs, should be highlighted. Bangor has an image of being rich in Civil Service jobs. However, those civil servants commute into Belfast. We do not have a concentration of current workers. Mr Weir: I welcome the report and the response from the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is essential that we debate this important issue and that the first report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel is dealing with these two important subjects. Given the timescale under which we are operating, it is unsurprising that many of the proposals are being put forward in a cautious manner. The opportunity to evaluate a lot of this stuff has been relatively limited. Therefore, I will avoid the temptation — to which others have succumbed — to do a lot of hand-wringing, or display angst, about Workplace 2010 or PFI. In particular, I will avoid the general tirade against the private sector that we heard from the party opposite. It struck me as strange that, at one stage, it seemed that that party was about to storm the Bastille in opposition to private-sector involvement, and then it effectively concluded that it is important to ensure that the PFI contracts are right. There appears to be a divergence between rhetoric and reality. We should remind ourselves that the Committee, as the Deputy Chairperson said, endorsed the three main aims of Workplace 2010: to enable the Civil Service to transform its public services in terms of efficiency and effectiveness; to provide accommodation in which staff are proud to work; and to safeguard funding for priority front-line services. Irrespective of the financial circumstances in which Northern Ireland finds itself in the future, and whatever the budgetary constraints, it is important that we provide the most efficient and effective resources and that those are concentrated on front-line services. Workplace 2010, if implemented correctly, will provide the best possible and most efficient use of services at the earliest possible opportunity. For all the many concerns that have been expressed about Workplace 2010 — and it is right that we ensure that matters are delivered correctly — I have yet to hear a practical alternative being offered that can deliver and provide the best resources. Some of the problems that arose with the pathfinder project at Clare House were highlighted. It is clear from DFP’s response that lessons have been learnt from that. Indeed, the whole point of a pathfinder project is to find out where problems arise, so that when the project is rolled out in a wider context, those problems can be addressed. I am convinced from the measured tones of DFP’s responses that this matter will not be approached in a cavalier fashion, that lessons will be learnt and that, as regards Workplace 2010, the best possible system will put in place. Unfortunately, in the second part of the report, there has perhaps not been the same level of focus on the location of public-sector jobs. Paragraph 64 of the report states that: “the Committee contends that this policy should not be framed simply in terms of the demographics of public sector jobs location or the need to transfer jobs outside the Belfast area. Rather, a strategic approach is required”. As was mentioned by a Member who spoke earlier in the debate, it is not simply an east-west issue; there are areas, particularly in the greater Belfast area, that have either not received their fair share of jobs, or cannot face any potential job loss. It is also important to note that the report states that the Department: “in categorising the location of offices within the public sector, should accurately reflect geographic reality.” In that regard, I concur with at least some of Mr Farry’s remarks. It is important that Rathgael House is not simply lumped in with the Belfast offices. Take, for instance, the allocation of the social security offices: we found it rather strange that Bangor and Newtownabbey were lumped in as part of Belfast, whereas other offices that are part of the BMAP (Belfast metropolitan area plan) area were taken as being outside of Belfast. If there is to be proper dispersal of jobs, it is important that that dispersal is carried out on a basis that reflects reality. The Committee also noted that the costs of dispersal are important. We must have an approach that delivers to people. That is why I welcome the Department’s indication that it will take this matter forward through the Executive, and that it will take a much more strategic look at it to ensure that whatever is implemented will be in the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. I welcome the report. It offers us a firm foundation for a more efficient and effective public service. Mr Hamilton: Given the sheer scale of Workplace 2010 — the money involved, the capital investment that will be released, the number of buildings that will be involved and the number of personnel that will be affected —I believe that the Assembly will not see many bigger projects in its lifetime. It was because it shared that sense of gravity that the Finance and Personnel Committee undertook this piece of work and sought this debate in the Chamber today — a debate which my colleagues and I welcome. The Committee and I support the objectives of Workplace 2010, including, most importantly, the provision of accommodation for civil servants in which they will be proud to work, and from which they can deliver excellent public services. We also envisage immense benefits for Northern Ireland in releasing millions of pounds for capital reinvestment. Those are the two elements on which I want to concentrate. As has been mentioned already, the health-check review into the Clare House pathfinder project revealed some minor glitches. The discovery of such problems was the reason why the review was undertaken. I am sure that a fuller analysis, which is due before the end of the year, will reveal further lessons that we must take seriously when implementing Workplace 2010. I welcome the fact that the Department of Finance and Personnel has already acknowledged that there are problems with the roll-out of information technology in Clare House, and has undertaken to learn from those lessons. The realisation of an estimated £150 million to £200 million for the public purse to be reinvested into capital programmes across Northern Ireland is the other side of the Workplace 2010 equation, and it is important, therefore, that the best value is sought for the buildings that are to be transferred to the private sector. One of the recommendations of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s report is that properties included under the aegis of Workplace 2010 should be valued by an independent commercial valuer, as well as by the Executive’s own property experts in land and property services. The Committee has also recommended that that assessment be made as close as possible to the time of transfer, so that best value for properties is achieved in light of the volatile property market in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Department of Finance and Personnel has agreed to the independent evaluation of a representative number of the properties that are involved in the project. Workplace 2010 has been criticised from some quarters since its inception — sadly, in my view — by critics who are wrong, not least because they are beset by an out-of-date and old-fashioned view that the private sector cannot be involved in such a project. Unfortunately, it seems that some of those people are present in the Chamber. Those who argue that PFI is inappropriate for Workplace 2010 miss the fact that several Civil Service facilities, including some buildings that form a part of that project, are leased from the private sector. Any new arrangement would not be much different from what is already happening. I welcome the Minister’s previous statement to the House, in which he announced that there would be no compulsory transfer of workers who are involved in estate and property management to the private sector. He stated clearly, and repeatedly, that the contract will permit the future dispersal of public-sector jobs, if so desired. Given that Workplace 2010 will provide first-class accommodation to deliver excellent public services, and will release significant amounts for capital reinvestment in Northern Ireland, this is not a difficult decision to take. I commend the Minister of Finance and Personnel for achieving agreement in the Executive for the pursuit of that policy. I shall turn briefly to the other issue that is addressed in the Committee for Finance and Personnel report on the location of public-sector jobs. As a representative of a constituency in the east of the Province, it will come as no surprise that I do not view this issue in the simplistic terms in which others do — that it is solely about moving jobs from the east of Northern Ireland to the west. It is not as straightforward as that. As has been said repeatedly during this debate, there are disparities in the east of the Province. In the borough of Ards, which forms a major part of my constituency, there are only 11·1 public sector jobs per 100 economically active people. It is also interesting to note that although approximately 59% of public sector jobs in Northern Ireland are in the greater Belfast area, 60% of Northern Ireland’s population live in that same travel-to-work area, so, if anything, some jobs should have to be pulled back from elsewhere and brought into the greater Belfast area. There is considerable merit in examining this issue, and the RPA may provide opportunities to disperse jobs elsewhere in Northern Ireland, but if the policy — Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): First, I thank the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for what I consider a very helpful report, which has been submitted to the Assembly in a constructive manner. As I said in my statement to the Assembly a couple of weeks ago, the debate around Workplace 2010 and the location of public-sector jobs has been difficult, and the issues have been challenging for all parties, not least my own. Therefore, it was particularly welcome to see a report that had taken the issues seriously and had dealt with them practically and pragmatically. The report has made a substantial contribution to the decision-making process at Executive level. 1.30pm To sum up the Committee’s recommendations, they cover three main areas. First, we must ensure value for money and that PFI is the right solution for the project. I believe that it is. Secondly, we need an all-encompassing and strategic location policy that maximises the benefits for Northern Ireland as a whole and that looks much wider that the current demographic spread to consider some wide-ranging and complex issues. Today, I have listened to appeals from Ards and north Down. When I am considering the composition of that review panel, I must see whether Solomon is available. Thirdly, the Committee recommends the importance of learning from experience and of being satisfied that we have done what we can to achieve the best result. I have already told the Assembly that the difference between a traditional procurement and the PFI option runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. However, in the final business case, issues such as benefits, risks, uncertainties and costs will be refreshed and fully appraised. Value for money and affordability will also be assessed across the lifetime of the contract, so, although the short-term gain of a capital payment will be welcome, it is only one component of a complex contract, on which long-term costs and benefits will be carefully assessed. The only other point that I wish to make about value for money is that the business case will be subject to rigorous inspection by DFP supply section. For people in and outside the Assembly who are not familiar with that term, DFP supply section is, broadly, the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Treasury in Whitehall. It is responsible for making recommendations on the optimum distribution of resources to Northern Ireland programmes and for ensuring that Departments spend money for the purposes that Assembly agreed. It does that as much for DFP as it does for any other Department. DFP supply section operates independently of Departments. I recently took its views on the latest iteration before I submitted the paper on Workplace 2010 to the Executive. Before final decisions are taken, DFP supply section will perform a further assessment, which will include value-for-money and affordability considerations. The Committee has been assured of that and of DFP supply section’s independence. Its assessment of DFP projects is no different from, and is conducted in the same manner as, that applied to other Departments. The Committee’s recommendations on the location of public-sector jobs were helpful in shaping the way forward on what is a complex issue. As the Assembly will know, the Executive agreed a two-pronged approach, including a framework for decision-making and a review of location policy. It is not simply a case of moving x number of jobs out of Belfast, as some commentators might suggest. Feedback on the consultation highlighted the need for a more holistic approach, which the Committee has also recognised in calling for a strategic approach and a cross-cutting strategy. The consultation responses and the Committee’s report were key factors in our decision to initiate a review, which I am keen to get under way as soon as possible. In a private meeting, I gave a commitment to the Committee’s Chairman and Deputy Chairman that I will speak to them about the composition of the review panel. I will bring the draft terms of reference to the Committee shortly, before seeking Executive approval of them. That will enable the Department to develop the type of strategic approach to policy on the location of public-sector jobs for which the Committee has called. Although I do not underestimate the task that lies ahead for the review team, it will be an opportunity to provide coherent and strategic direction, which will be in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I fully accept the need to learn lessons and to build on others’ experience as an entirely relevant principle. There is a wealth of information on PFI that has shaped much of the recent Treasury guidance. Too often, we hear about contracts that have been successful, or where huge mistakes have been made. Indeed, some commentators would lead us to believe that all PFIs are disastrous, which, of course, is not the case. Therefore, some work on the issue will be fruitful. All too often, we tend to draw conclusions based on those cases, but it is important that projects learn from each other. PFI is not the answer in some cases, but in others, such as Workplace 2010, it demonstrates best value for money and delivers a solution that is in everyone’s best interests. I accept the views expressed by the SDLP Member for North Antrim, Mr O’Loan. There will not be a risk-free option for the Assembly or for the Executive. However, we can use our skills and abilities to learn as much as we can from the experiences of others, good and bad. In this case, the Department has taken lessons and analogies into account, including, for example, effective gain-share provisions, and how we deal with surplus assets, manage risk and deal with flexibility and uncertainty. We have also drawn heavily on the extensive use of open plan in the private and public sectors. The question for us is not whether we move to open working, but how we do it. Again, I recommend that Committee members visit Clare House, and that offer is also open to all Members. My officials will be happy to arrange tours so that Members can get a more colourful picture of the type of environment that we are seeking for our public servants. Rather than take a huge leap of faith, my Department ran a couple of pathfinder projects, one of which is now well established and working well. The second project, in Clare House, has experienced teething problems with its new technology, and that has taken time to resolve. We expect to receive a further report on that project, which the Committee will examine closely, as shall I. However, I do not accept any inference that the pilot projects are not working. The experience and lessons learnt, both technical and cultural, have been invaluable in moving things forward. At the moment, the full evaluation of Clare House will be completed in good time to feed into the final negotiations. I have been to Clare House and have talked to staff there. Nothing that I have heard or seen has led me to believe that we should not be doing this. It will be helpful to understand the dynamics and drivers in other jurisdictions as regards the relocation of jobs. Other Governments will have taken the decision to relocate jobs for different reasons, and it will be useful to understand and reflect on those experiences. For the benefit of the Member for North Down Dr Farry, it is my desire to run the two projects in parallel. My only reluctance in this matter is that I do not like giving assurances on things that are outside my control. There are elements in both projects that are outside my control, not least because the courts, the Committee or the Executive may take a view that would make it difficult for me to comply. However, I have made it clear to the House and to people outside the House that I want the two projects to run in parallel so that one can inform the other, and decisions will be taken in the full knowledge of where we shall be overall. I commend the Committee for its work, and I commend the Chairperson and his colleagues for the role that they have played in dealing with complex issues. I give the Committee and Members a firm commitment that we will address the recommendations and that we will engage positively with the Committee as we move forward in the coming weeks and months. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank my Committee colleagues, Members and the Minister for their contributions on what has been a constructive debate. From the outset, the Committee recognised that the Minister had inherited what was already a mature proposal, and he had to take the project forward on the basis of previous work. That informed the work of the Committee. Our job was not to create additional difficulties in a complex and strategic area. The Minister has clearly recognised that, and has responded in a positive way to the generality of the Committee’s recommendations. The implementation of the Workplace 2010 project and future policy on public-sector job location will clearly have a direct impact on the working lives of thousands of public servants for decades to come. We have heard carefully-considered contributions from a number of Members and from the Minister. I do not intend to go through all of those contributions, but I acknowledge that, generally, Members were supportive of the strategic objectives of the project. Members pointed to and recognised the many risks that are involved, and they welcomed the responses of the Department — particularly, given the concerns about the relocation policy, the announcement by the Minister of a time-bound review of that policy. The stated objectives of Workplace 2010, as my colleague Mervyn Storey said, were to: “Enable the NICS to transform the way it delivers public services; Provide accommodation in which staff are proud to work; and Safeguard funding for priority front line services.” Go raibh maith agat, it is clear from Members’ contributions that we can all support those objectives. However, for them to be realised, aside from the particular method of procuring Workplace 2010 — to which I will return in a moment — it will be vital that the project’s implementation is handled effectively. Otherwise, there is the potential for massive disruption to staff and to the provision of public services. The Committee has concerns about some of the findings of the initial health-check review on the Clare House pilot project. I recognise that, already, the Department has indicated that it is taking those lessons on board. The Committee will carefully examine the findings of the more complete post-occupancy evaluation, which will be available in December. Committee members intend to take up the Minister’s invitation to visit Clare House to see the accommodation at first hand. I believe that there is a general acceptance that it is necessary to move to the best-and-final-offer stage in order to arrive at a final estimation of the value for money and affordability of the total-property PFI option. That will permit and inform discussion on the proposed safeguards of the public interest that can be built into the terms and conditions of the contract specifications. As Committee Chairperson, I look forward to working and commenting on that process with my colleagues on the finance scrutiny Committee. As the Committee’s report states, taking into account the scale and duration of Workplace 2010, the stakes are high, and much hinges on the robustness and reliability of the final business case in reassessing the procurement options and determining the best solution in respect of value for money and affordability. The Minister has given specific commitments on the robustness of the final business case, including an assurance that an assessment will be made of the costs and risks of each procurement option before finalising the business case. The Committee has a statutory remit to carefully monitor developments and to ensure that those commitments are honoured. The Committee has called for the final business case, including its underlying assumptions, calculations, analysis, conclusions and recommendations, to be independently and objectively assessed. The Department has suggested that the Committee’s concerns will be addressed through both the Office of Government Commerce gateway review process and the challenge role of DFP supply section, as my Deputy Chairperson said. The Committee had recommended a more independent and objective mechanism; nevertheless, I hope that the two review mechanisms will provide the level of assessment that was envisaged by the Committee. That remains to be tested. The Committee also concluded that, if a PFI approach is eventually confirmed, the pivotal issues will be whether the final contract takes full account of best practice in PFI procurement and whether the subsequent contract-management arrangements are effective. Again, the Department has given a range of commitments on and positive responses to those matters. 1.45 pm The Committee called for greater transparency on the long-term commitments to PFI deals generally and on the impact that they will have on future budgetary flexibility and affordability. The Committee believes that the affordability of the proposed PFI option for Workplace 2010 must be considered in the context of the collective commitments of the Executive that result from both PFI deals and other long-term borrowings. The Department has helpfully provided further information to the Committee on how PFI commitment reports will be reported to the Treasury and on how departmental annual accounts will be reported to the Assembly. Although I welcome that information, I have concerns, and I believe that there is still scope for greater co-ordination and transparency on the reporting of PFI commitments to the Assembly. I also consider PFI commitments to be an aspect of departmental expenditure going forward, which Assembly Statutory Committees should monitor closely. The one area in which the Department has taken issue with the Committee is on the Committee’s observation that the proposed PFI option will mean that Workplace 2010 will effectively double the present £1·5 billion PFI debt. The Department argues that ongoing charges for the contract will be met largely from the current funding envelope for the buildings in question. The Department further argues that if that figure is to be regarded as public debt, all current and future rents and utility charges would have to be regarded as public debt also. In my opinion, that argument avoids the important distinction between PFI debt and public debt. It also avoids the likely reduction in the Executive’s control and flexibility over commitments in a long-term PFI contract compared to those under traditional or existing arrangements. Moreover, there is no getting away from the fact that if the PFI procurement option is taken, the resultant Workplace 2010 contract will be by far the largest PFI commitment facing the Executive. There is therefore a heavy onus on the Minister and the Department. I emphasise that I recognise that responsibility explicitly. Indeed, it is on all of us to ensure that the procurement of Workplace 2010 is right. If the wrong procurement route is taken, or if a flawed PFI contract is put in place, the next generation will be left to pick up the pieces. I do not believe that any of us wish to leave such a legacy. The Committee concluded that an affirmative policy on the dispersal of public-sector jobs could be an effective tool for supporting the development of the regional economic hubs that were identified in the regional development strategy, thereby closing the significant regional economic and prosperity gaps in the North. The Committee considered that an affirmative policy on dispersal would also complement and advance a range of other existing cross-cutting policies including: statutory equality provision; New TSN; rural-proofing; the anti-poverty strategy; and the forthcoming regional economic strategy. It will be important for any dispersal policy to be framed and implemented in a way that ensures the strategic distribution of Civil Service jobs across the North. That argument was reiterated today. Careful research and consideration will need to be given to the locations, the number, types and grades of jobs that are selected, and the functions or business units that will be relocated. The Committee welcomes the Minister’s proposal for a time-bounded review of policy on public-sector job location, and it will be considering the terms of that review shortly. Go raibh maith agat. To conclude, I believe that the Committee’s report and the Minister’s response represent examples of positive and constructive engagement between the Department and its associated Statutory Committee. I look forward to ongoing engagement on that basis and to further debate on these important matters. I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly takes note of the first Report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel on Workplace 2010 and the Location of Public Sector Jobs, and the response to the Report by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Crisis in Burma Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes. Mrs Hanna: I beg to move That this Assembly views with the deepest concern the unfolding events in Burma; salutes the courage of the Burmese people in challenging the oppressive, corrupt and illegitimate military junta that has ruled Burma for decades and which has brought misery to the country and lives of its people; declares its support for Burma’s democratic leaders, in particular the imprisoned Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, and calls for her immediate release; supports the call of the Prime Minister for the most extensive range of sanctions possible against the regime, under the auspices of the United Nations; and further calls on the British, Irish and other European Union governments to take all necessary action to help topple this despicable regime. People of goodwill throughout the world have watched in horror as the fragmentary evidence of events in Burma over the past few weeks has unfolded. They have had to look through a glass darkly, because the vicious and degenerate military junta in Burma, which has effectively been in power for 45 years, has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the world learns as little as possible about what is happening. Thanks to modern technology — mobile phones, the Internet and camera phones — and unlike the previous uprising of the Burmese people in 1988, no one can doubt that the junta has degraded that country and made its people the most oppressed on the face of the earth. We have watched in horror as wholly peaceful, saffron-clad Buddhist monks and civilians have been shot dead, spirited away for torture — or worse. Some people may say that to debate this motion is “gesture politics”, that all the sanctions and boycotts in the world make no difference to the junta and that Members should stick to their remit of governing Northern Ireland. With all due respect, I do not accept those views. Nor, indeed, do I accept the comments this morning from another sideliner. Although I want the Executive to be far more proactive, please do not let us ever get to the stage in Northern Ireland where we do not think that it is our business to raise such issues, give leadership and take action. For several decades, the SDLP was a member of the Irish anti-apartheid movement, and, along with other Members, I participated in the boycott of South African produce in support of sanctions against the undemocratic apartheid regime. Throughout those decades, people told us that we were wasting our time, that the white Government was too strong and that they had too many allies and resources. At the end of the day, democracy triumphed, and, in an almost miraculous series of developments involving the leadership of Mandela, de Klerk and others, the apartheid regime was brought to an end, and democracy was brought to South Africa. It may seem impossible to us now that this vile, murderous junta will, one day, fall and that its leaders will be brought to justice. We in the West may not have the necessary leverage to bring down this regime, but we do have some leverage on those countries that can take action. I first became engaged with the situation in Burma when Aung Sang Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. This woman has won admiration across the world for her courage and steadfastness on behalf of her people; as she has said, “Fear is a habit”. In 2003, I travelled to Thailand to work with some Burmese minority groups — the Karen, the Shan, the Mon, the Chin, the Arakan and the Kachin. If the plight of the majority ethnic group — the Burman — is dire, that of the minority ethnics living in squalor in camps along the Thai and Bangladeshi borders is infinitely worse. They truly are the wretched of the earth, and they have had to endure all types of atrocity up to, and including, genocide. In September 2005, as chairperson of the Assembly all-party group on international development, I hosted a briefing here at Stormont from Ministers and officials in the democratic Burmese Government in exile. I have kept in regular touch with them. I am sure that Members will have a good overview of recent Burmese history; I will just give a brief account. Burma is a country of around 55 million people, and it should be one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. It has great natural resources of oil, gas, gemstones and forestry that are the envy of, and indeed exploited by, its larger neighbours, such as India and China. Its land is productive, especially of rice, but now its people are among the poorest on the planet. The great natural wealth of Burma has been looted by the military junta and their family interests, and its economy has been perverted to the position where Burma is the second-largest producer of opium and a major source of drug trafficking in Asia. Burma is one of the poorest countries in Asia. Some 130,000 children die there every year, and 10% die before their fifth birthday. A third of Burma’s children are underweight. In a once highly literate country, less than half the children complete five years of education. Nearly half of Government spending goes on the military budget; less than 30p a year per person is spent on education, and less than 10p a year per person on health. Burma achieved its independence from Britain in 1948, and was ruled democratically until the military coup of 1962. The military has been in control ever since. In 1988, unrest over the junta’s economic mismanagement and political oppression led to an uprising, and an estimated 3,000 demonstrators were killed. International pressure then led to democratic elections in 1990, when the National League for Democracy won 80% of the votes. However, the military, led by the current thug-in-chief Than Shwe, annulled the results of the election, and announced plans for a new constitution, which came to nothing. In 1997, despite the misgivings of many, Burma was admitted into membership of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, on the ostensible grounds that contact with the outside world would help to civilise the junta. As we all know, the latest protests broke out on 15 August, when the price of fuel was increased fivefold — this in a country with vast supplies of oil and gas. That was the last straw for a people who had been provoked beyond endurance. China has become the sponsor and patron of the Burmese military, cynically adopting a posture at the United Nations Security Council of purporting to oppose any interference in the internal affairs of another country and maintaining that there is a democratic process appropriate for the country. Nonetheless, there are two reasons why China may be susceptible to pressure to act in its own interests in a way that could lead to a transition to democracy. The first is that the Olympic Games take place in Beijing next year. China’s human rights record is already under attack from the world; now its foreign policy is too. As Edward McMillan-Scott, a British Conservative vice-president of the European Parliament, said: “China is the puppet master of Burma. The Olympics is the only real lever that we have to make China act. The civilised world must seriously consider shunning China by using the Beijing Olympics to send the clear message that such abuses of human rights are not acceptable.” I hope that the British and Irish Governments, and the rest of the EU, are absolutely ruthless in pressing China to put pressure on the Burmese junta to allow international humanitarian aid to be given to the country, under the protection of the UN, without it being siphoned off; to stop shooting protesters; to free all political prisoners; and to end the pretence that a new constitution is being drawn up. The junta must be forced to yield to democratic rule. I welcome the comments from Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he wants the pressure of the world put on the Burmese regime. He wants sanctions and pressure from the United Nations, China, India and the rest of the world to be placed on the Burmese regime. We are far away from Burma, but we can play our part in lobbying for the cutting off of all trade, tourism and investment links in Burma. 2.00 pm I thank the aid agencies and Amnesty International for briefing Members and for organising rallies in support of the democratic movement. In most world affairs, economic development has required an accompanying process of liberal democracy and a representative Government, because a modern economy cannot be run by uneducated people. The greatest struggle in the twenty-first century will be between totalitarians such as the rulers of China and Burma — Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Order. Mrs Hanna: Lighting a candle is better than struggling in the darkness. Mr Hamilton: I commend the Member for tabling the motion. I agree with her initial comments: I am sure that there are some people outside the Building who are saying that we should not be debating the motion, considering the problems that Northern Ireland’s people believe exist here. However, for many reasons, it is our responsibility and duty to debate such issues. There are many good reasons, peculiar and specific to this part of the world, for the Assembly to debate the situation in Burma. It has already been stated that Burma is a former British colony, so we have a responsibility to be concerned about the people in that part of the world who were formerly ruled by Britain. Many servicemen fought in Burma in the Second World War. I am thinking particularly of the Burma Star Association, which had many members from this part of the world. In that regard there is a long association with Burma. Local people give generously to charities and aid agencies such as Save the Children, which does tremendous work in Burma. The United Kingdom is the European Union’s second-largest donor of humanitarian aid to Burma. Mention has also been made of the lucrative drugs trade in Burma. It is the second-largest producer of opium, and it is a producer of methamphetamines. Those drugs are destroying the lives of people in our country. I always look at countries such as Burma as being on the verge of failed status — if they are not already there. It is similar to countries such as Sudan and Afghanistan, which international terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda have seized on, with unimaginable consequences. It is, therefore, essential that Members add their voices to those of our national Government in the worldwide chorus of concern about the situation in Burma. I am sure that Members have seen the images that were beamed into our living rooms by whatever means were possible in spite of freedom of speech and expression being suppressed. None of us could have watched the images of Buddhist monks and other ordinary Burmese citizens defying one of the world’s most brutal regimes without being inspired by their courage and bravery. Some 100,000 individuals took to the streets in spite of knowing that those who had protested similarly some decades ago were treated most brutally and oppressively, and that over 3,000 people were callously murdered at that time. As Members debate the motion, the whereabouts of many of those recent protesters, and the details of what happened to them, are unknown. After almost 50 years of one of the most oppressive rules in the world, the people of Burma are once again following the example set in recent times by people in countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are embracing democracy and freedom. For years, we were told that democracy and freedom were alien concepts in some parts of the world. However, it seems that freedom is infectious. Who could blame the people of Burma for, once again, doing what they are doing — taking to the streets in pursuit of issues that we take for granted? They are being subjected to the denial of democracy; political imprisonment; severe restrictions in freedom of expression and freedom of assembly; a brutal military offensive; forced labour; the use of child soldiers; and sexual violence by the army. I could go on. There is also religious intolerance, a high rate of inflation and massive poverty, despite the country’s great wealth of natural resources. Burma is potentially a very rich country that is being brought to its knees by a brutal and oppressive regime, as is also happening in Zimbabwe. Burma also has malaria, TB, HIV and AIDS epidemics. The world needs to say clearly, and with one voice, that this sort of behaviour is not only unacceptable, but will simply not be tolerated. I am encouraged by the positive reaction of our own Prime Minister, the UN and the US Administration. They are saying the right things but now need to start doing the right things. Mr S Wilson: Will the Member agree that, rather than the British Government or even Europe, its next-door neighbour China, India and the Asian countries that should really be putting pressure on Burma? They can really make a difference. Mr Hamilton: I agree entirely with the Member; it is almost as if he read my mind. I was about to say that while this is a challenge for all of us, the real challenge is for China, the growing superpower in the region. China is trying to project a more benign, cuddly image to woo the world in the run-up to the Olympics. Pressure must be put on it to back the right side in Burma. Ms Anderson: Ba mhaith liom cur leis an mholadh seo. Sinn Féin, along with many people on this island, would like to voice its outrage at the recent events in Burma. There has been an appalling abuse of human rights by the military junta, which has usurped and imprisoned the democratically elected Government, and beaten down and killed many peaceful protesters. Sinn Féin acknowledges the brave people who have risked their lives in that country to bring news and video recordings of those events to the world. Myanmar is not an isolated incident in the world of savagery and brutality. Abuse of human rights is widespread, and Governments have persisted in both legally and illegally supplying weapons to those regimes. Condemnations from afar are easy, but they are no more than hypocrisy if they come from a country where the Government allow the export of arms and munitions to Governments that abuse and ignore the human rights of their citizens. I endorse the comments made by Amnesty International programme director Patrick Corrigan, who said: “We are all concerned for the fate of those protesting for democracy in Myanmar. But what should concern us doubly is that…firms may be contributing — perhaps unwittingly and totally legally — to the miserable human rights situation in the country by providing weapons components to the military.” The Amnesty International report this year identified firms based in the North involved in the arms industry. The report highlights companies such as Goodrich Engine Control Systems in Belfast and Martin-Baker Aircraft Co Ltd in Antrim that, according to Amnesty International, have made components that may have been incorporated in jets sold to China, which have then been supplied to Burma. Current loopholes in the export licensing system make it impossible to know for certain whether that is the case. There is no comprehensive EU-wide control system in place to ensure that Governments can effectively implement and enforce their embargo commitments. To support the motion in its totality would be reprehensible. Sinn Féin has concerns about the implication of the unfortunate, if not dangerous, language used. It calls for the taking of: “all necessary action to help topple this despicable regime.” That is unsafe language, particularly in the wake of the British and US Governments’ illegal invasion of Iraq. For that reason Sinn Féin cannot support a motion that could be seen to sanction a similar invasion against the people of Burma. Sinn Féin voices strongly its concern and support for the immediate release of Burma’s democratic opposition leader from house arrest. Sinn Féin can support only half of the sentiments in the motion, and it is concerned about wording in the motion that states: “to take all necessary action to help topple this despicable regime”. For that reason Sinn Féin will abstain from the vote. Amnesty International has called on all Governments to support actively the UN process to establish a global arms trade treaty with strong provisions requiring full respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law when considering transfers of conventional arms so as to prevent arms transfers from contributing to the violations of such law. Sinn Féin supports Amnesty International and views that as the preferred option. The reliance here on international human rights law puts into the sharpest focus the importance of our current work to frame a bill of rights for the North. This is our mutual achievement, that through the Good Friday Agreement and our power-sharing Executive, we are now engaged in working towards defining rights in framing a bill of rights. We in the Assembly along with key stakeholders in civic society are engaging in path-breaking work of global significance and we should congratulate all involved. We would be detracting from that work if we were to support the unfortunate words in the motion that I read out earlier. We fundamentally seek to endorse the primacy of human rights. Mr Savage: I support the motion. I thank the Member for bringing the events in Burma to the attention of the House. Like many Members, I saw the shocking and disturbing pictures on television as Buddhist monks, clergy and other citizens took to the streets in protest to voice their concerns and try to bring about change in their country. All that those people want to see is a reduction in commodity prices, the release of political prisoners and national reconciliation. The people of Burma have been in that situation before. The nationwide protests in 1998 were suppressed violently by the authorities with the killing of more than 3,000 people. Burma is a country controlled by fear due to the heavy-handed military presence, with many reports coming through of brutal beatings, killings and disappearances. According to media reports, it is difficult to confirm the details of those who have been arrested, where they are held and under what circumstances. That has been compounded by the restrictions placed on the Internet and telephones. Random searches for mobile phones and cameras have been stepped up and those who have been caught with them have been beaten and arrested. Since the peaceful protests in Burma last week were harshly repressed, the Burmese security forces have raided monasteries and attacked peaceful protesters; they have fired live rounds and tear gas, and they have beaten protesters with batons. It is believed that at least 1,000 protesters have been arrested in Yangon alone, the majority of whom were monks. There have been many more arrests in other towns and cities across the country. That is in addition to the many people detained since August last year, many of whom are key figures in the National League for Democracy. The authorities have acknowledged that there have been 10 deaths. However, is it feared that the actual number is much higher. How many people have to die before the wider world wakes up, takes notice and does something about the situation? I welcome the fact that the United Nations has agreed a strong resolution and that it will be sending a special rapporteur on human rights to Burma on an urgent mission to give a detailed report on the human rights situation. The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, said: “the international community is determined to see a process of genuine national reconciliation, democratisation and the establishment of the rule of law”. I believe that everyone in the Assembly wants to see the same. During the last war, our soldiers fought alongside the Burmese people, and we have a duty to stand by them at this crucial time. I support the motion. 2.15 pm Ms Lo: I thank Mrs Hanna for proposing the motion, and I welcome the debate. However, although I endorse the sentiment of the motion, I am concerned about calls for the toppling of the Burmese Government. Mrs Hanna: At no time did I call for the toppling of any Government. Ms Lo: Our common humanity obliges us to provide the Burmese people with all of the help that we can in their fight with the military regime. The Burmese dictatorship is not only brutal and horrifying, but, tragically, insane. No regime can be described as sane if it locks up a Nobel Prize winner such as Aung San Suu Kyi for simply caring about the condition of her country. The Burmese regime cannot be treated as sane when its citizens live in misery, despite the fact that their country has a vast array of minerals beneath its soil. The generals are at war with the Burmese people. We must aid those people and the forces of democracy in that war. The key to Burma is not in Rangoon or the new capital — the general’s lair — Naypitaw. The generals have been plundering their country and living the high life, at the cost of the ordinary Burmese, for decades. Time and again, they have shown that they have no problem with murdering their fellow countrymen and that they will not, of their own accord, change their evil ways. The key to Burma is China, which has benefited most from the commercial and diplomatic boycott. China uses Burma’s access to the Bay of Bengal for military means, and is the prime customer for Burmese exports such as timber, oil and gas. As the 2008 Olympics approach, China is conscious of its international image. As the world has recently seen in Sudan, international public opinion can do much to encourage Beijing to put the squeeze on the generals. Mr Kennedy: What is Ms Lo’s considered view on advocating a boycott of the forthcoming Olympics in Beijing, as a tool against the Chinese Government? Ms Lo: No. Working with them, and continuing to exert pressure, is the best thing to do. In recent weeks, there has been some soft pressure from China — and that is welcome. However, that is not enough. The time is ripe for a tougher stance from Beijing. China is not the only country in the region that is failing to live up to its basic obligations to humanity. India, another neighbour, constantly struggles with Beijing for influence in Burma, but has little regard for how it is governed. Thailand is no less guilty. That is the country that buys the largest share of Burmese exports, and which, itself, has problems in sustaining any sort of democratic Government. The final guilty party is Russia, which blocks any anti-junta initiative in the UN Security Council and sells armaments to the generals — the only internal guarantee they have for staying in power. The Burmese regime’s external guarantee is the nexus of support provided by the countries that I have mentioned. Those nations hide behind the dogma of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country. However, in reality, they are the generals’ lifeline. The UN must take action. However, given the possible Chinese-Russian veto, the British, Irish and other European Governments must be pressurised into taking joint EU action, and, indeed, collective action with non-EU states, in order to penalise the Burmese generals. That can be done by disrupting their wealth, which is allegedly already being moved to bank accounts scattered around the world. Sanctions against the country would not frighten the generals and would only be to the detriment of the people. The generals are already at war, so they would not be worried about the misery of the ordinary Burmese people. However, were we to find a way to their pockets, they would surely be worried. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Mr Shannon: I thank the Member for tabling the motion, which is appropriate and timely. It is a firm and long-held belief of mine, and of many others in the Chamber, that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Essentially, it means that to stand and shake our heads, wring our hands and tut about how awful a situation is will by no means change that situation. It will, however, allow evil to prosper and overtake, and, in the case of Burma, to rule a nation. For too many years, we in the West have wrung our hands and imposed sanctions on Burma. In doing that, without backing up anything that we say, we have lost any sway that we ever had over the ruling dictatorship in that country. Another brief or missive from the UN, or a strongly worded letter from Gordon Brown, would have as much effect on the Burmese ruling army as would politely asking a child in the street to put down the sweets that he or she is eating in favour of a Brussels sprout. Why would that child give up what he or she craves after, and has a taste for, for something less palatable? The simple answer is that the child would not. In the same way, the dictatorship in Burma has gotten away with strong-arming the people for so long that it now has what it wants. It will not give that up on the say-so of nations that do nothing but write notes and impose sanctions, only to shake their heads the rest of the time. The real power, as my colleague Sammy Wilson said, lies with the influence of China, Russia and India. The Burmese crisis is not new but has been brewing for many years; and for many years, the UN has been trying to do its best to influence the Government there to play fair. Sadly, it boils down to the fact that the UN has no influence. In saying that, I have no wish to detract from the tremendous amount of good that the UN does through providing relief packages and food and medical supplies. The junta has doubled the price of rice, and that has led to 70% of wages being spent on food. The price of fuel has increased — 50% of some people’s wages is being spent on it. That means that less money is available for food and education. The food on which the Burmese people rely is rice. More sickness and disease will follow for people for whom rice, and nothing else, is their staple diet. Recent statistics show that more than one third of children in Burma suffer from a form of malnutrition. The junta uses a strong military presence to ensure that those who question their authority do not do so for too long before they are “sent away”. A BBC correspondent reported a middle-aged man in a tea shop as saying: “I really want change, but they have guns and we don’t, so they’ll always win.” That is the reason why so many of the Burmese people have lived so oppressed for so long. There are sad and recurring incidents in many villages, where the people try to be self-sustaining, only for the military to arrive and steal their stores of food. There are 20,000 internally displaced persons from the Karen region alone. People who are on the run number more than that. Indeed, people have also fled across the border. It is little wonder that the peace-loving monks are the leaders in the stand against the regime. The time for them to stand and wring their hands has passed, and they have tried to lead peaceful protests, which is a human right of any person who wishes to express concern and emotion over a situation. However, in Burma, that has led to 4,000 monks being rounded up and sent away in an attempt to stop the peaceful demonstrations. |