the transitional Tuesday 23 January 2007 Committee Business Private Members’ Business
The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Madam Speaker: At the start of yesterday’s sitting, Members expressed an interest in debating the situation at Muckamore Abbey Hospital and the recent report by the Police Ombudsman. Motions on those issues have now been tabled in the Business Office. The Business Committee will meet today at 12.30 pm to discuss the scheduling of debates on those motions. Report on Workplace 2010 and Public Sector Jobs Location Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for each of today’s debates. The Member moving each motion will have 15 minutes in which to speak, with 15 minutes being allowed for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will be allowed a maximum of 10 minutes. The Chairperson of the Committee on the Programme for Government (Mr Molloy): I beg to move That this Assembly notes the report from the Committee on the Programme for Government on Workplace 2010 and Public Sector Jobs Location and endorses the findings and conclusions set out in the Report. In proposing the motion, I do so not as a member of the Committee on the Programme for Government but as one of the two Chairpersons appointed to the Committee to enable it to conduct its business. Members should know that the Secretary of State wrote to me yesterday evening about the report that is the subject of this debate, and I understand that copies of that letter are available in the Rotunda. For the benefit of Members, however, I will outline the letter’s key messages later in my remarks. On 24 November 2006, following a direction from the Secretary of State, the Business Committee of the Assembly established a Committee on the Programme for Government to consider priorities for a new Executive and to make preparations for restoration. The Committee on the Programme for Government recognised that there was much to be done, and, although it was extremely busy examining some specific matters, it determined to set up six subgroups to consider a range of other issues. One subgroup was formed to review the progress of the Workplace 2010 initiative, which is part of the reform programme aimed at addressing the urgent accommodation problems of the Northern Ireland Civil Service office estate. Importantly, the subgroup was also required to consider key issues in relation to public-sector jobs location. It is appropriate to declare that I chaired the first meeting of the subgroup on 7 December 2006, but not as a member of the subgroup. Alternative arrangements for chairing each of the subgroups were agreed on 11 December 2006 and introduced immediately thereafter. When the Committee on the Programme for Government considered the findings and conclusions of the subgroup, there was consensus among the parties that not only should its report be printed, but that it should also be debated in the Assembly. The report is a Committee report, but its substance is, largely, the fruit of the subgroup’s labours. I acknowledge the efforts of the members from the four main parties who served on the subgroup. I am sure that they will participate in the debate. It is also important to record that the Committee on the Programme for Government was careful to consider the findings and conclusions of the subgroup and added its own value to the report. I have no doubt that some of the Committee members will want to have their say. The members of the subgroup would also want me to acknowledge the support of Assembly staff. It is to their credit that the report was completed over the Christmas period in time for the Committee’s consideration. I know how dedicated the Committee office staff were in providing support to the Committee and to all the subgroups, and I thank them for the hard work and long hours that they put in to produce the report. It is worth reminding the Assembly that the Committee on the Programme for Government agreed the terms of reference for the subgroup as recently as 4 December 2006. The Committee called for a report by 3 January 2007. It is to the credit of the subgroup that it rose to the challenge and reported by the due date. In so doing it called for, and received, written submissions and also heard evidence from witnesses. Having acknowledged the efforts of members, it is also right to recognise the valued contributions made by those who provided written responses and those who appeared, willingly and at short notice, before the subgroup to ensure that members were well informed on the issues. I shall now highlight some of the key areas in the report. The issues raised proved to be complex and, dare I say it, somewhat controversial; they are recorded on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the report. Workplace 2010 is a private finance initiative (PFI). I know from experience that the PFI concept can provoke a range of reactions, not all of them positive. It is no surprise therefore that this matter came up as early as the subgroup’s first meeting, given the advanced stage of the procurement process, and the fact that the terms of reference required the subgroup to review the progress of the Workplace 2010 initiative. Members of the subgroup felt somewhat constrained, and they were also concerned about the risks of having direct contact with any of the preferred bidders in relation to a commercially sensitive matter. Nevertheless, it is clear from the report that members have been diligent in their investigations. The most striking feature of Workplace 2010 is the sheer scale of the initiative, which is a matter of some concern, especially to the members of the subgroup. This large and complex programme will affect about three quarters of the office estate and is expected to impact on some 18,000 civil servants. In return for an upfront capital payment, there will be an asset transfer to the successful private-sector partner of some 77 buildings out of a total of 202. About half of those 77 buildings are in the greater Belfast area. The remainder are in regional towns and include the jobs and benefits offices. However, according to my reading of the report, the impact on staff was also given due consideration, particularly the issue of transferring staff from the public to the private sector and the quality of the environment in which civil servants might be expected to work to allow them to provide a much needed range of services to the public. The equality impacts and social and economic effects are also highlighted in the report. The report also reflects on the importance attached to safeguarding the interests of the taxpayer and the local economy. In this regard, there are associated references to sustainability. Many Members will want to focus on what the report says in relation to the important issue of the location of public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say on this issue. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that the Committee added its own value to the report that the subgroup produced. That value is captured not only in the body of the report, but in summary on the second page of the report, where three specific additions and an amendment are recorded. The Committee agreed to write to the Secretary of State setting out its views, namely: “no decision should be made on advancing the Workplace 2010 contract until the concerns expressed by the Committee in its report had been considered; it does not accept that the proposed consultation on Guiding Principles for the Location of Public Sector Jobs should be confined to the Review of Public Administration consequentials or that Workplace 2010 should be excluded from this consultation; and the approach being taken to the implementation of Workplace 2010 has the potential to lead to the closure of government offices in non-urban areas, which might in effect result in the centralisation of public sector jobs.” I want to confirm that the Committee sent a letter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has responded, and copies of his reply are available in the Rotunda. I am encouraged by the Secretary of State’s reply, which appears to recognise the validity of the Committee’s concerns. On Workplace 2010, he has given an assurance that officials will carefully consider, and will seek to take account of, the concerns expressed by the Committee. He has also indicated that the outcome of those considerations will be conveyed to him before final decisions are taken. In relation to the proposed consultation on the guiding principles for the location of public-sector jobs, the Secretary of State has indicated that the scope of the consultation will be widened to allow for comment on the broad, overall policy relating to dispersal, including Workplace 2010 and decisions around the review of public administration. The Secretary of State also wrote that the consultation paper would be published next week. On the question of whether Workplace 2010 has the potential to lead to the closure of Government offices in non-urban areas, with a resultant centralisation of public-sector jobs, the Secretary of State is most insistent that the Workplace 2010 contract will improve the flexibility to accommodate any future decisions on the dispersal of jobs and will allow the Civil Service to respond quickly as and when those decisions are taken. 10.45 am Having brought Members up to date with the latest developments, I want to draw my remarks to a close. Without dismissing the many papers, documents and reports that we read, there is no doubt that the devil is in the detail. This report acknowledges the virtue of making things easy for the reader by providing an executive summary. Given that the remit of the Committee on the Programme for Government is to consider priorities for the new Executive, Members will want to pay particular attention to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 on page 2 of the report. There they will see clearly in bold type, three actions, which I wish to commend to the Assembly. The first shows regard to local businesses. It calls on a restored Executive: “to monitor the position and consider what interventions might be possible”, in circumstances where local businesses might suffer as a result of awarding Workplace 2010 to any particular bidder. The second action appeals, to a greater or lesser extent, to us as politicians. It calls on a restored Executive: “ to undertake an urgent examination of policies, which appear to favour PFI Solutions.” The third action says much about the challenge of securing benefits for all the people of Northern Ireland, but not at inconsiderate expense to the taxpayer. It calls for the development and implementation of policy for the dispersal of public-sector jobs, which would take account of existing strategies for equality, rural development, sustainable development and targeting social need subject to careful consideration of cost. I look forward to the rest of the debate, including what Members have to say about the Secretary of State’s letter. Thank you. Mr Buchanan: There is real concern that all the work carried out by the Committee may be rendered worthless, because the process toward the implementation of Workplace 2010 is so far down the route to completion that no meaningful changes can be made. There is always a concern that direct-rule Ministers will disregard the views of Northern Ireland politicians; but that concern is more acute in this situation, and it seems to be reinforced by the views given by the Secretary of State in his letter to the subgroup early in its investigations. Obviously, the recent press coverage surrounding some PFI contracts in Northern Ireland has not been positive, and that must inform our views when it comes to examining the proposals at hand. The press coverage of Balmoral High School highlights the worst possible scenario regarding this kind of arrangement. Although reassurances were given that lessons have been learned from every bad example, we must always guard against the bad practice that has occurred in Northern Ireland and in all other parts of the United Kingdom. However, there is no doubt that much of the Civil Service estate is in a very poor state of repair. There is an urgent need to ensure that the conditions in which civil servants work are of the best possible standard, and that they allow for efficiency and productivity. To that end, if Workplace 2010 is to go ahead on the current basis, it is vital that there are safeguards to prevent companies making so-called super profits on the back of the purchase and leasing back of the buildings. There must also be protection for staff across Northern Ireland who are concerned that they will be forced to transfer from the public sector to the private sector, with the accompanying pension, and other, changes that could entail. If Workplace 2010 is to proceed, there is little doubt that a large multi-national company will win the contract to provide services to the buildings. Whereas reassurance was given that local companies may be involved in service provision, I am concerned that current local providers of these buildings may be pushed aside in the name of increased profits that will ultimately go to a company based outside Northern Ireland and probably outside the United Kingdom altogether. With respect to the proposals for decentralisation, no one in the Chamber opposes the redistribution of jobs across Northern Ireland. However, Members must remember that it could not be carried out without cost to the taxpayer. The process must be carried out in such a way that jobs are relocated at appropriate times rather than simply to meet artificial quotas or targets. The relocation of jobs must be on a sustainable basis. The Scottish experience provides a model appropriate for Northern Ireland, should that proposal be acted upon. Unfortunately, the Committee may be trying to shut stable doors long after the horses have bolted. However, I hope that the Government will take the Committee’s concerns on board, since many of the proposals are well on the way to implementation and others have already been completed. It is important that the voices of Members, as local representatives, are heard by those implementing the proposals and that they take heed of our valid concerns. Dr Birnie: All Members will be familiar with problems that arose over the past 15 years because of how electricity generation was privatised in the early 1990s. A long-term contract was entered into, which, in the eyes of customers, was too generous to suppliers. That continues to be a problem. Is history about to repeat itself? I ask that because Workplace 2010 was a part of the Committee’s remit. I do not ask solely because, as some Members will have noticed, a former Government Minister, who was around in the early 1990s, has reappeared as part of one of the four companies bidding for the Workplace 2010 contract. At the heart of the Workplace 2010 initiative lies a 20- or 25-year contract for transferring public assets to private ownership. If, in that process, the financial variables are miscalculated, Members, and Northern Ireland as a whole, will regret it for a very long time. Mr Buchanan referred to the worst case encountered to date: Balmoral High School. In that instance, the public sector and the taxpayer will have to pay for years for a building that is no longer necessary because of PFI arrangements. On the basis of evidence reviewed by the Committee, Members cannot be entirely confident that, with respect to Workplace 2010, the financial variables have been correctly calculated. There are three such variables. The first is initial asset valuation, which, if correctly calculated, will ensure that buildings are sold off at the right price. It is worrying to inspect the websites of various agencies and discover that markedly different figures are quoted. The second variable is the unitary charge, which determines whether the public sector is charged a fair rate to lease back the buildings and use them or an exorbitant rate. What happens if, as is very likely in future, there is a need to change conditions of use? Will the private operator exploit his position? Thirdly, there are clawback arrangements. What if the private operator — or owner — of the Civil Service building chooses to sell it to another private company at a profit? Will a percentage of that profit be clawed back to the taxpayer? Some will say that all the financial details have been correctly calculated, because the so-called outline business case demonstrates that the so-called net present value of the Workplace 2010 contract represents a lower-cost way of carrying out necessary repairs and maintenance of the Civil Service estate. That seems to be the official line that was given to the Committee and cited in the evidence submitted; that line is also taken by the Strategic Investment Board (SIB). However, there are difficulties in evaluating that outline business case. First, having been published in May 2005, it is almost two years out of date. Secondly, the figures in the outline business case cannot be discussed in the public domain because of alleged commercial information sensitivities, thus handicapping any open and transparent debate about their implications. Thirdly, and most importantly when determining how much credence — or otherwise — should be given to the business case, a cost-benefit analysis for a projected 25-year period will always be a hazardous exercise. It is vulnerable to the assumptions that are made, such as the interest and inflation rates that will apply over the 25 years. Therefore, I am not convinced that the outline business case provides a knock-down argument that Workplace 2010 is truly superior to the more traditional methods of operating the Civil Service estate. The other half of the report’s subject matter concerns decentralisation, to which the UUP takes a pragmatic approach. Decentralisation is beneficial in so far as it is consistent with reasonable value for money. It should be remembered that Northern Ireland has extensive experience of decentralisation policies in the 1990s and at the instigation of the 1999-2002 devolved Executive. Several consultancy studies on decentralisation have been carried out by, for example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. One estimate is that to move 4,400 Civil Service jobs from the Belfast area to elsewhere in the Province would cost about £40,000 per job in current and capital costs — in other words, a considerable sum of money. It is also worth examining the experience that other jurisdictions and Administrations have had of decentralisation policies, as the subgroup did when taking evidence and in its consideration. We examined the experiences of Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. Notably, the Scottish Executive adopted a pragmatic approach to ensure that any decentralisation was done in a cost-managed way. The Republic of Ireland has introduced a policy of moving as many as 8,000 jobs out of the Dublin area. So far, the number of civil servants who have moved is in the hundreds, largely because they themselves have been resisting such movements. These examples are worth pondering. One point about the statistics that were presented to the subgroup is worth noting. They showed that roughly 60% of Northern Ireland’s population live in the greater Belfast area. The percentage of Civil Service employees who work in that area is also 60%. In other words, the two figures more or less match, which hardly indicates any gross inequity in the existing distribution of jobs. I thank the staff for their work on the report, which was done under great time pressure and even straddled the traditional Christmas holiday. I also thank those who gave evidence, both from the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA). I support the motion. 11.00 am Mr Dallat: I welcome the publication of the report, and I would like to return to the key issue for the SDLP — the decentralisation of public service jobs, which would be in the interests of Northern Ireland as a whole. Esmond Birnie referred to previous attempts to decentralise jobs; however, those were not very successful. The Department of Education generously offered to move jobs from Bangor to Belfast, while the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not respond at all. The contract for the provision of Civil Service accommodation is nearing a conclusion, and that creates a new set of circumstances that will enable the disappointments of the past to become the successes of the future. However, that will happen only if there is a concerted effort on many fronts to tackle the problem. It cannot be left to happen in a haphazard way; any new Assembly must have the enthusiasm and commitment to overrule the stubborn attitudes of senior civil servants who create the impression that they cannot see beyond Glengormley when it comes to the location of Civil Service jobs. In Coleraine, for example, 261 jobs are going to be lost in Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland, and there are worries that more will follow. Some 84 jobs have already been lost in HM Revenue and Customs, and a review is ongoing in the Social Security Agency — all in the one town, where the industrial base is extremely narrow. There are further worries about Limavady and Derry, where many of my constituents find work. No one can tell me that that set of circumstances does not require the intervention of a new Assembly with the power and the commitment to deal with the crisis that is developing, not just in Coleraine but across the North, with the potential to cause particularly nasty destruction in areas that are already experiencing high levels of social deprivation. Mr McMenamin: Does the Member agree that special emphasis must be placed on decentralisation of jobs to the west? I am talking about west Tyrone, Omagh and Strabane. Hundreds of civil servants — many of them young married women — leave their homes at six in the morning and do not get home until seven in the evening, leaving their children behind. That has been the story in the west for too long; surely there should be a fair share of jobs, and more jobs should be decentralised. Mr Dallat: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. I met civil servants in Coleraine last Friday. It is not just young mothers; many civil servants are also carers, and they cannot afford to be away from home for 16 hours a day. That is another factor that Members need to take into account when calculating the cost of decentralising Civil Service jobs. There is a mood afoot that there is little opportunity at this late stage to build something into the contract to allow a new focus on decentralisation. I do not accept that. I listened to the figures given by Esmond Birnie — £40,000 to move one job. There has to be flexibility in the new contract to look at new ways in which decentralisation could be done without incurring massive costs. I am sure that many Members came here today via the M1, the M2 or other arterial routes. One cannot fail to notice the horrendous damage that is done to the environment by sending thousands of civil servants into the greater Belfast area each day. That causes mental strain and adds to the never-ending parking problems. Some Members have mentioned the defects in the Republic’s decentralisation programme, but it seems that people do not want to focus on its successes. Towns in the west of Ireland that could expect only minor improvements in their economic prospects prior to decentralisation are now vibrant and prosperous. That was brought about not only by the decentralisation of central Government jobs; many county council jobs were also decentralised, and the benefits of that are enormous. More importantly, people have a new confidence in the future. The economies are more stable, and the new wealth has created many more jobs in the private sector, and, God knows, we need them. New industry and commerce are developing in areas that struggled for survival in the past. The emigration buses have stopped running. There is a new focus on education and training, new infrastructures for roads and railways — more about which Members will hear later — and the other support services that make up a prosperous society. There is no reason for not replicating that in Northern Ireland, but it needs a new dynamism and commitment that have not been present in the past, and that gives one good reason for having a local Assembly. In the months ahead, people across the North will be looking to a new Assembly to bring about real change. That will not happen if decentralisation is not a cornerstone of change, or if senior civil servants continue to dictate where jobs will be located. Now is the time to ensure that winds of change sweep through the corridors of power, bringing new hope to many socially disadvantaged areas where Civil Service jobs are disappearing like snow off a ditch. Changes must be made to bring hope where there is despair, happiness where there is gloom, and confidence where insecurity has been the order of the day. That has already happened in Wales and in Scotland. What is good for Aberystwyth and Aberdeen is good for towns outside the greater Belfast area, and, as my esteemed colleague Eugene McMenamin reminded me, that is particularly true of the north-west and the west. Mr Neeson: I was not a member of the Committee on the Programme for Government, and neither were any members of my party. My colleagues and I gave up most of our summer to serve on the Committee on the Preparation for Government and the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret Peter Hain’s despicable decision to exclude the Alliance Party from the Committee on the Programme for Government. In many ways, that exclusion was a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and to the Alliance Party. The main aim of the report is to create an efficient and effective workforce. Any working environment must be conducive to creating the necessary productivity. The fact that the main concentration of Civil Service jobs is in the south-east corner of the Stormont estate shows how centralised the Civil Service has become, although Civil Service jobs are based in 70 properties in the greater Belfast area. The existing properties leave a lot to be desired. In the past, too many ad hoc decisions were taken on where to locate jobs in the Civil Service. From 1996-98, when the talks were being held in Castle Buildings, I saw for myself the conditions that Northern Ireland’s civil servants had to experience. I thought that it felt like a prison. Therefore there is an urgent need to modernise the buildings and facilities for our civil servants. The new Invest Northern Ireland building on Bedford Street is a good example of modernisation, and it shows what modern facilities can be achieved for our workforce. I am in favour of decentralisation. I am on record as having stated that one major Government Department should be located in the city of Derry. In many ways, decentralisation provides greater opportunities to develop a more efficient and effective workforce. I agree with Eugene McMenamin that the time that many civil servants spend travelling to and from work should be taken on board. It is important that lessons should be learned from experiences in other areas, such as Scotland, Wales and particularly the Republic of Ireland, where decentralisation has clearly been proven to be successful. One of my main concerns about the sell-off of properties, particularly in the Stormont estate, is that we must take rising property prices in Northern Ireland into account. Who will benefit most? Will it be the Government or the private sector? I contend that the private sector stands to make most from the sell-offs. We must also consider whether the refurbishment of existing buildings would be preferable to constructing new buildings. Like many people, I am not convinced by the PFI argument. Does it provide value for money in the long term, and how can it be guaranteed that there will be good competing bids? One advantage with PFI is the opportunity for decentralisation, and I can think of many excellent sites in east Antrim that would provide facilities for new Civil Service offices. As regards the review of public administration (RPA), I have said in the Chamber that 10 Government Departments in Northern Ireland is too many and does not provide for efficient and effective government and administration. If devolution is restored, will the Executive be prepared to take the necessary decisions to provide an effective and efficient Government? If that does happen, there will be an impact on staffing, other resources, and on building needs for the future. A radical approach will be required to cater for the necessary public administration needs in the twenty-first century, and I pose a question that is not addressed by Workplace 2010. What provisions are being made for the provision of e-government? Undoubtedly, that will have major implications for staffing, buildings and other resources. The restored Assembly will face major challenges, and I hope that it will meet them. Mr Doherty: A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome today’s debate on the Workplace 2010 report produced by the Programme for Government Committee. I wish to place on record several serious concerns about the current approach by British direct-rule Ministers, particularly on decentralisation. Workplace 2010 is a three-year to five-year programme of work to transform the Civil Service office estate. It involves the introduction of new accommodation standards, including open-plan working, rationalisation of the existing estate and the disposal of surplus accommodation to the private sector. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the Strategic Investment Board are working together on that. The programme is likely to be delivered through a total property PFI solution, meaning that a private company would own and manage the Civil Service estate. 11.15 am Civil Service accommodation is substantial, with a value of some £280 million and running costs of around £75 million per annum. The plan is to halve the current number of office buildings — around 70 in the greater Belfast area — over five to seven years as leases expire and larger buildings are refurbished. Thus some 35 buildings, along with several regional offices, will be included in the first phase of procurement. Although Sinn Féin has no difficulty with a modernising and reforming agenda that leads to better work practices and accommodation, it has a number of serious concerns. The privatisation agenda — the selling off of public assets to the private sector — is one such issue. It is clear that the entire thrust of British direct-rule Ministers, the British Labour Party and the Treasury in London will have profound and far-reaching consequences. The Strategic Investment Board and the Department of Finance and Personnel both claim that the chosen PFI method will save £200 million. There is absolutely no proof for that claim. There are also implications for employees, given that private companies will be managing the estate. There are proposals to outsource — privatise — work that is currently being done by the Civil Service. Over 500 jobs will be handed to private-sector contractors. Clearly, that will have implications for conditions of employment and pensions. Another danger is that this will adversely affect smaller, locally based companies, which will be frozen out. They will find it difficult to compete for such big contracts, which will most likely be won by single suppliers. Local economies will lose that revenue. Sinn Féin’s central concern is about the impact of the policy on decentralisation. Workplace 2010 claims to have addressed the issue by holding some of the Civil Service estate back, while balancing it with the need to deal with pressing accommodation requirements in the Belfast area in phase one. The second phase will address the regional estate. There is no time frame on that. There are concerns that this actually militates against decentralisation, because the core administrative work of Departments will be consolidated in new offices in the Belfast area. That is particularly pertinent in the context of the review of public administration and the breakdown of councils. This is the rationale for the infrastructure and investment patterns that are clearly benefiting the greater Belfast area to the detriment of other areas. As regards the RPA announcements, it means that although councils in border areas will have increased powers, they will not benefit from Workplace 2010. Senior civil servants, as the senior policy-makers, have a vested interest in ensuring that little or limited decentralisation takes place. Long-term rent agreements on privatised buildings will ensure that the core work of Departments continues to be done in the Belfast area. Decentralisation would also have an immediate and long-term economic benefit in that it would bring jobs to the border counties. Decentralisation is one way to help to develop a better economy and to benefit rural regeneration; the rural population would be better sustained, and there would be an increase in income in many rural towns that would impact on schools, shops, post offices and other facets of rural life. However, Sinn Féin believes that an opportunity has been lost to truly decentralise the Civil Service; to help to create balanced regional development throughout the North; and to help to kick-start regional economies in line with equality and new targeting social need obligations. It is not enough to say that moving from east Belfast and north Down into Belfast city centre satisfies equality and New TSN criteria. Sinn Féin is concerned that Workplace 2010 as presently constituted, notwithstanding the flexibility for movement built into the programme, will merely copper-fasten the status quo and replicate current patterns of investment and disadvantage. That is unacceptable. Although, as an Irish republican party, Sinn Féin has no political or emotional attachment to the Stormont estate, it is nevertheless opposed to the concept of public property being sold to the private sector, and it is opposed to plans to privatise aspects of the work currently being carried out by the public sector. The party remains unconvinced that PFI offers the best option and value for money, and it believes that a privatisation agenda is being rushed through too quickly. Mr Weir: Will the Member give way? Mr Doherty: I have concluded my remarks, so the Member has the Floor. Mr Newton: I support the report. Like some of the Members who have spoken already, I pay tribute to the staff and the civil servants who went out of their way over the Christmas period — a difficult time in the calendar — to produce a balanced report. As has already been mentioned, the circumstances under which the subgroup met were such that much work had already been carried out on Workplace 2010, and the letting of the Workplace 2010 contract was at an advanced stage. That placed constraints on the subgroup members, and it could be argued that the brief was very narrow and the timescale for the task extremely short. The subgroup also met at a time when there was much need for investment in public-sector buildings and a recognition that modern and efficient offices were needed to deliver public-sector services effectively. Members have referred to when they were incarcerated — although I do not think that they used that exact word — in Government office buildings during the talks process; they felt as if they were in jail. If they felt that way for that short but intensive period, one can only wonder how the civil servants who spend year after year working in those offices must feel. However, the Government have taken advice, with the result that the PFI option has been chosen. The subgroup members expressed concern that officials appearing before them were allowed to speak only in support of current ministerial policy. In supporting the report, I want to consider two distinct areas. The first area is the equality, social and economic effects on the companies and employees who are currently engaged in carrying out maintenance work on the buildings that are listed. The second area is the policy of dispersal and whether employees might be forced to move home if an affirmative policy were put in place. During the subgroup’s meetings, I expressed great concerns about the small businesses that are currently undertaking work on behalf of the Civil Service and that will be affected by this initiative. Over the years, small to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) have tendered for business and have built their reputations on offering a service to the Civil Service; those businesses may be the major losers when the maintenance contract is awarded. Local firms employ local people, and I can only assume that they are performing their tasks to the satisfaction of the Departments. To some extent, I am relieved that, as I understand it, the “big four” multinationals that have tendered for the project have indicated that, should one of them win the contract, they are willing to employ local labour and to involve local companies. I queried how tightly that commitment could be tied down; I was assured that it could be tied down to a limited extent, but whichever company won the contract would have the right to use any labour firm that it wished. However, it is useful to know that those companies are willing to consider the use of local labour. The use of local labour and the economic benefits for Northern Ireland should taken into account when the applications are being considered. I hope that the people who make the final decision will keep those factors uppermost in their minds. The people who are most likely to be hit are those who undertake what are regarded as “lower” jobs — those engaged in cleaning, canteen services and minor maintenance work. When previous contracts of this nature were awarded to large multinationals, those companies went on to establish themselves in offshore low-tax regimes, thereby minimising the local economy’s tax take. That issue concerns me, and it was discussed during the subgroup’s deliberations. That factor should also be taken into consideration when the final contract is awarded. I come now to the policy of dispersal. At one stage in my career, I spent two years being told by my employer that, due to reorganisation, I would be given certain options and would be absorbed into another area of work. However, it was not made clear where that work might be or what type of work I might be expected to do. Therefore, I can understand how some civil servants might be feeling about the Workplace 2010 initiative. Mr Weir: Does my Friend share my concern about Rathgael House in Bangor? For some reason — the motivation of Government could be questioned on this issue — Rathgael House has been categorised as a “Belfast” building; no other building outside Belfast has been categorised in that way. Many staff in Rathgael House transferred from Belfast to Bangor because of family commitments, so the potential for dispersal is causing many of them great stress. 11.30 am Mr Newton: I concur with the Member’s comments. I had intended to deal with that matter. The experience of the Republic of Ireland Government has been mentioned. In their attempts to decentralise jobs, they have met with massive resistance from civil servants. As I understand it from press reports, the decentralisation of Civil Service jobs will become an election issue. Imagine what it must be like for the core of Civil Service employees at present. There must be dissatisfaction and concern among them and also among those small companies that help to service Government buildings. The Scottish experience has been referred to, and we should learn from the experience of those who have previously engaged in decentralisation. The Scottish Executive, having been around the block once, are now starting to add to their thinking on decentralisation. Indeed, there is revised guidance on the relocation process, which seeks real and tangible benefits for the relocation, provides a rationale for it and is clear about the standards and processes for staff consultation. Information is made available to individuals and to Departments, and the real and total case for rationalisation is put. We in Northern Ireland must learn from experiences elsewhere in order to ensure that we get cost-effective delivery in all situations. The report notes that 60% of the population live in the Belfast travel-to-work area and that 59% of civil servants are based in that area. To dismiss those figures would be unfair and, indeed, discriminatory. Mr Elliott: I also wish to express my thanks to the Committee for the work that it has done on this report. It is no major surprise that some Members have indicated that the Northern Ireland Civil Service estate has been under-resourced in the past few decades, resulting in a limited maintenance of buildings and a general decline in the overall estate. Modern and efficient offices are required to aid the delivery of modern public services, whether in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) or in the areas of health, the arts and education. Whatever the Department or agency, antiquated offices will have a negative impact on efficiency. The need for vast levels of investment in the estate is given as the reason for the PFI known as Workplace 2010, a scheme that is similar to others in Great Britain. It is somewhat encouraging to hear a Sinn Féin Member express concern at the prospect of Her Majesty’s Government selling off some of their buildings. Mr Weir: Does the Member take encouragement, as I do, from the fact that some progress has been made today? It used to be “no return to Stormont”, yet now it is “no sell-off of Stormont”. Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for his comments; I cannot disagree with them. Perhaps the situation is moving on, in spite of what others may think. Workplace 2010 is not simply about buildings. It is about employees; it involves real people. That is the crux of the matter. The terms used to sell the PFI often belie the very real fears of those that the organisation employs. The most anxious employees are often those in the lowest-paid jobs — those who earn little above the minimum wage. We often hear consultants and others come out with phrases such as “improve the working environment” or “introduce more efficient arrangements”. Those phrases sound good to management and Government, but the fears of those further down the ladder are often deep-rooted. Last summer, I was contacted by Civil Service support-level employees who were deeply concerned by Workplace 2010’s proposals and the pace at which changes were being implemented. They were deeply anxious that there was no supporting business case for making those changes, which looked set to be rolled out even before the two pilot schemes had been completed and analysed. Those essential staff were worried about how the outworking of Workplace 2010 would affect their status. They were especially worried that they would be forced to move to the private sector. I welcome the fact that the Committee on the Programme for Government has addressed that concern. Another bone of contention was that pensions were to be “comparable” after the changeover to the private sector. Note that pensions were to be comparable, not the same. Those staff to whom I spoke were worried not only about their own positions but about the impact that those changes could have on the way in which Departments are able to perform their duties to the Northern Ireland public effectively. For example, the influx of agency staff, of which there is potentially a high turnover, could mean no continuity of staffing. That could lead to a lack of ownership of tasks and, ultimately, to an unsatisfactory outcome for everyone. Few of us are comfortable with change, particularly when that change is outside of our influence and when it can result in major changes, such as our status as an employee. Outsourcing does not have a good reputation in the Northern Ireland public sector. Many millions were wasted on the Child Support Agency (CSA), which failed to realise any improvement, and there are examples of agencies neither properly staffing their organisations nor training those staff. There is little wonder that the public lack enthusiasm for such a move when the employment of agency cleaning staff in some hospital wards has resulted in poor standards of cleanliness. The fear of continued centralisation and the relocation of public-sector offices into our towns and cities cannot be allowed to continue to disadvantage those in rural communities, particularly those in the west of the Province. I thank other Members for their contributions on that point. Representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) recently briefed some of my colleagues on Fermanagh District Council and me on the proposed restructuring of HM Revenue and Customs. That restructuring threatens more than half of the 82 jobs in its Enniskillen offices. The proposed centralisation of those jobs is on top of last year’s proposal to remove Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) staff from the Enniskillen office. The west is suffering as a result of such proposals, and the agencies concerned appear to show little interest in catering for the needs of employees outside of our main towns and cities. We heard in earlier contributions about employees having to travel long distances to work and about the problems that they have encountered. Public-sector staff in Enniskillen cannot feasibly travel to other sites in Northern Ireland. They will also find it extremely difficult to find alternative roles in their locality. Moreover, the Workplace 2010 proposals disadvantage the public by removing staff who usually provide face-to-face, front-line services and advice to vulnerable members of our society, such as those on low income and those who find the complex taxation system difficult and intimidating. The loss of those jobs will mean that more than £500,000 will be lost to the local economy, resulting in numerous families struggling to cope financially. Indeed, it will be a major loss to the entire community. There has been an historical problem of underinvestment in the estates, to which a pragmatic approach is certainly required. However, consideration must be given to the loyal staff members in the communities that I have mentioned. I do not want Northern Ireland to arrive at a situation whereby some areas are almost totally reliant on the public sector for employment. We have local council areas in the Province in which somewhere in the region of 50% of the workforce is employed in the public sector. That is not healthy; we want a fair and reasonable balance. The success or failure of a major initiative such as Workplace 2010 in large organisations that are similar to the Civil Service invariably lies in the hands of the often overlooked but essential roles that security, catering or cleaning staff play. Employees at all levels must be kept informed and on board if the full potential of any change — particularly those that are outlined in Workplace 2010 — is to be realised. The need for value for money must be addressed at every stage of the PFI. If the taxpayer is not receiving a good deal from the private firms, that problem will need to be addressed. I am glad that the Committee on the Programme for Government recognised that fact in its conclusions. However, the PFI cannot be allowed to focus solely on upfront costs, and service standards must not be compromised in order to remove the possibility of costly mistakes being made down the line. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair) I am a strong advocate for decentralising public-sector jobs and taking them away from many of the main settlements. Earlier, someone said that there should be one major Department that focuses on Londonderry. It should not just focus on Londonderry; it should focus as well on areas such as Omagh, Dungannon, Strabane and Enniskillen. The recent centralisation trend is disadvantaging the west of the Province. The final outcome of the review of public administration will result in the largest public-sector change that will have been experienced here, but, pending that outcome, rationalisation is premature. I support the conclusions of the report. Ms Ritchie: Like the Members who have spoken before me, I commend all those who are associated with the report — the members of the subgroup and the staff who work alongside them. The location of public-sector jobs must be addressed with respect to the relevant need of a particular community. A remoulded Workplace 2010 strategy should be the driving force for doing that. That means that a mechanism for the centralisation of Government jobs in the greater Belfast area should not be propelled through. However, that seems to be happening at present. One of the central points that is advocated in the report of the Committee on the Programme for Government is the need for: “an affirmative policy for the dispersal of public sector jobs which would take account of existing strategies for equality, rural development, sustainable development and targeting social need.” I concur with that view, and I strongly support the recommendation that a restored Executive needs to proceed to: “develop and implement such a policy, for the benefit of the whole of Northern Ireland as a matter of priority.” Families in rural areas and regional towns need existing public-sector jobs to be sustained and secured. Local residents rightly demand the relocation of new jobs to places in which administrative expertise and skills exist in abundance. Take the Workplace 2010 strategy as an example: it involves a review of current Civil Service office accommodation in Belfast and in regional towns. I am aware that the strategy group has already earmarked some public-service offices in South Down to be part of that review. Those include Rathkeltair House in Downpatrick and the local social security office. Rathkeltair House provides Planning Service and Roads Service functions as well as housing the driver and vehicle licensing office, the county agricultural office and the jobcentre. The building is relatively new — 16 years old — and is considered to be a development opportunity, but no sound reason has been offered for its inclusion in the contract. Many public-sector staff work there and wish to remain there; indeed, the majority of local residents access services there. Public-sector staff must be provided with working conditions that reflect best practice in health-and-safety requirements. 11.45 am Why sell a building that is only 16 years old? What is the real rationale for such a proposal? Was it made in the interests of people, the requirements of the local area, the best service delivery, or cost? Clarification is urgently required on that matter. I note the commitment made by Minister Hanson in a recent letter to me, dated 7 November 2006, that: “the staff providing public services currently within the building would be relocated to another location within the town.” I welcome that ministerial commitment to sustain existing jobs. I hope that that remains the position and that further opportunities will be created for the decentralisation of new public-sector jobs through the construction of the new Social Security Agency office in Downpatrick and substantial associated offices in other towns in the area. I believe that that task must be fulfilled at an early opportunity in order to provide public and local confidence. I hope that that will be one of the priorities of a restored Assembly and Executive. Job dispersal and the relocation of new public-sector jobs to regional towns must be an integral part of the Workplace 2010 initiative. The needs of families, the young and the elderly must motivate, propel, and be the driving force of Government policy for the location of jobs. Furthermore, there is a compelling imperative for a revised Workplace 2010 strategy to ensure the sustainability of existing public-sector jobs and the relocation of new jobs to regional towns in order to fulfil the requirements of the regional development strategy. The Workplace 2010 strategy must quell the current contradictions in Government policy. My colleague John Dallat, who represents the east Derry constituency, referred to the relocation of motor vehicle testing to Swansea from Coleraine. If that decision were implemented, it would also have an impact on the local vehicle testing offices that are dotted throughout Northern Ireland. If Workplace 2010 is to mean anything for the decentralisation of local jobs to local towns, the relocation of the Coleraine office must be stopped immediately. In 2000-01, the regional development strategy stated that Downpatrick should develop as a hub town. For that to happen, there must be: a centre of public administration that provides substantial, high-level, public-sector jobs; a thriving retail commercial base; inward investment opportunities; support for local indigenous business, including the tourist centre; and a significant land zone for social and private-sector housing. I therefore look forward to positive approval for Down District Council’s request for the location of a new council headquarters in Downpatrick. Such an administrative centre, with the capacity to accommodate other public-sector and Civil Service jobs, could be the centre of public administration excellence, alongside the divisional police headquarters, the Social Security Agency, the proposed midwifery unit, the new hospital, and the ambulance and emergency services centre. Expertise and skills in medical, health and social services provision and public-sector administration must be sustained and developed. Moreover, the growing problems of travel to and through the greater Belfast area would suggest that it makes economic and social sense to secure existing jobs and relocate new public-sector jobs to places such as Downpatrick. The Assembly must resist any residual attempts in Workplace 2010 to rob regional towns and rural communities of existing jobs or new employment opportunities. Economic opportunities in regional towns must be developed and sustained. We must continue to ensure that our children are able to seek employment and career opportunities in towns such as those in my constituency of South Down. We must continue to ensure that public-sector jobs in Northern Ireland are dispersed effectively and equitably. Provision of new public-sector jobs, combined with the development of all possible economic opportunities, investment in roads and transport infrastructure and the enhancement of the agricultural, fishing and tourism sectors will help to ensure more equitable benefits for families, young people and the elderly. Workplace 2010 must be a determined strategy to decentralise Government jobs to rural areas. If not, it should be scrapped. It should protect and secure existing jobs, and it should secure the relocation and creation of new jobs in our regional towns so that a positive contribution can be made to the local economy. It is significant that the Taoiseach is launching the National Development Plan (NDP) today. That is the first such plan with an all-island dimension, and, hopefully, it will provide the necessary funds to give regional towns the infrastructure that will ensure that new jobs can be located in them. If those towns have the links, why can they not have new jobs? That is what balanced regional development is all about. Mr Beggs: I share the concerns that other Members have about the contract and the huge dangers that exist. Ultimately, those could cost local taxpayers and any devolved Administration dearly for decades. We should remember past mistakes, particularly those made with the electricity contracts, which we are only getting out of now. There is a huge danger that we will repeat those past mistakes. I wish to concentrate on the effect that the proposed change will have on my constituency of East Antrim. I wish also to highlight the lack of Civil Service job opportunities in that constituency. My points will be relevant, given that I have heard many Members argue that Civil Service jobs should move west. That argument suggests that constituencies in the east are better served. I wish to draw relevant and objective material to the attention of Members and senior civil servants. According to the claimant-count figures of December 2006, the job density figure for the East Antrim constituency is 0·48. That is the lowest figure for any constituency in Northern Ireland. Essentially, people in East Antrim have relatively few job opportunities. Unemployment levels in East Antrim are listed in the claimant count as being at the Northern Ireland average of 2·4%. What does that mean? It means that to travel to where jobs are located, constituents of mine in places such as Larne, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey must get on their bikes, in their cars or onto buses or trains. They must travel to other places at a cost to themselves. Mr Elliott: Does the Member agree that it would be difficult for someone who lives in Enniskillen to cycle to a job in Belfast? Mr Beggs: I hope that the Member accepts that it would be equally difficult for someone who lives in Carnlough to travel to work in Belfast. Other areas of East Antrim, in the east of the Province, have relatively few Civil Service job opportunities. Annex 1 of the ‘Report on Workplace 2010 and Public Sector Jobs Location’ illustrates civil servants’ work locations and from where they travel. It shows that of the constituencies in the east, East Antrim has the second-lowest number of Civil Service jobs in the devolved Departments. It has 215 employees from a total Civil Service workforce of over 27,000; that means that less than 1% of the workforce is employed in the constituency. That translates to only 78 jobs in Carrickfergus, 136 in Larne and 148 in Newtownabbey. The Carrickfergus Borough Council area has the second lowest number of Civil Service jobs of any Northern Ireland council area. My constituents must travel elsewhere for jobs in the Civil Service. The opportunities do not exist in parts of the east of the Province, just as they do not exist in parts of the west. East Antrim fares badly in terms of job opportunities. What of the future? We are all aware that the RPA is at a fairly advanced stage, and that other Civil Service reforms are to occur as well. I have noticed changes under way that will adversely affect my constituents’ already low level of employment. It is clear that there will be fewer council employees in my constituency. I share the concerns of my constituents that, with Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey being grouped with Lisburn and Antrim, local jobs will be relocated to those towns, where the councils have large, plush new headquarters. Similarly, Larne has been grouped with Ballymena, Ballymoney, Moyle and Coleraine. Jobs in Larne are likely to be transferred to Ballymena or Coleraine. The Larne offices of the Roads Service and the Water Service have closed in recent years, and I am concerned that other areas that are under review may suffer similarly, especially since the area already has one of the lowest numbers of Civil Service jobs in Northern Ireland. The Social Security Agency is currently reviewing back-office operations in Carrickfergus and Larne. It has been hinted that these operations will be discontinued, and there is consultation ongoing at present, so what few jobs remain are also at risk. I have also had informal conversations with a relatively senior member of staff of the Housing Executive, and I was asked whether Larne leaned more towards Ballymena or towards other towns in East Antrim. Obviously there is some discussion within the Housing Executive about the possibility of downgrading its office in Larne — perhaps it will become some sort of sub-office, at more cost to local jobs. There is not just a dearth of jobs in the west; there are areas in the east that need job opportunities to be created, and this is particularly so in my East Antrim constituency. Jobs are at risk in the councils, in the Housing Executive and in the social security offices, and the constituency could end up with a complete dearth of Civil Service job opportunities. I ask the Government and any future Administration here to examine areas in the east of Northern Ireland that have not been faring well. I support my colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Elliott in asking for a fair and reasonable balance in any relocation plan for Civil Service jobs. I ask for a fair and reasonable number of jobs to be relocated to East Antrim, so that the large number of civil servants who live there do not have to travel to Belfast or other areas at a cost to the environment and at a personal cost, given the extra travelling distance, to themselves. Mrs O’Rawe: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the report from the Programme for Government Committee on Workplace 2010. I support the comments that others have made about the timescale involved and about how advanced the project already is. As my party colleague Mr Doherty said earlier, Sinn Féin has no difficulty with a modernising and reforming agenda that leads to better work practices and accommodation. However, we do have concerns on a number of issues around Workplace 2010 and the location of jobs in the public sector, most of which have already been mentioned. Workplace 2010 has implications for employees, given that private-sector companies will be managing the estate. There are proposals to outsource work currently done by the Civil Service, and NIPSA (Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance) has stated that more than 500 jobs will be handed over to private-sector contractors. Such action would have huge implications for conditions of employment and pensions. Over 300 of those 500 jobs involve the lowest-paid staff in areas such as security provision and mail and messenger services. 12.00 noon Sinn Féin is concerned that that decision will have an adverse impact on certain groups on whom section 75 will have an effect, including those for whom gender and community background are issues. Although women and Catholics are under-represented in Senior Civil Service grades, they are over-represented in the lower grades, which are the grades most likely to be affected by privatisation. Sinn Féin is concerned that Workplace 2010 will have an adverse impact on workers who will have to move from the public sector to the private sector, and it shares the concerns of others that The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) will not provide adequate protection. It is not enough for the initial consultation document to state that TUPE should be sufficient to prevent adverse impacts. That is too vague and does nothing to allay the fears of the workers who would be affected by the transfer. Sinn Féin notes that Britain has experienced difficulties with the transfer of undertakings, and my party is concerned that those are not adequately addressed in Workplace 2010. Sinn Féin’s concerns around dispersal or decentralisation remain, and the equality impact assessment has not addressed them. A LeasCheann Comhairle, I hope that all the concerns raised by the subgroup are given due consideration. I thank the staff from the subgroup and the witnesses who gave evidence. Go raibh maith agat. The Chairman of the Subgroup on Workplace 2010 and Public Sector Jobs Location (Mr Poots): Although I was not a member of the subgroup, as its nominated Chairman, it falls on me to wind up the debate. As a result of decisions taken at a meeting of the Committee on the Programme for Government on 11 December 2006, my party was invited to nominate a member to facilitate the work of the subgroup. I was honoured to assume that role, and although I was unable to attend the subgroup’s final meeting, at which my party colleague Paul Girvan ably deputised, I was present when the subgroup heard its oral evidence, considered the written submissions and discussed the issues in some detail. Many of the points that have been made in the debate have therefore come as no surprise, as they referred to issues that exercised the minds of the members of the subgroup. Neither has it surprised me to hear contributions from Members who represent urban, suburban and rural constituencies. The question of where public-sector jobs — or, for that matter, any jobs — might be located is often the subject of discussion, and the prospect of employment opportunities in one’s constituency is always attractive. Thus far, my assessment is that some more Departments will have to be created, because we have had proposals for new offices in the city of Londonderry and in Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon and Enniskillen. Indeed, when she referred to hub towns, Margaret Ritchie appeared to want several Departments to be located in Downpatrick; not in Ballynahinch, Newcastle or Saintfield, but very clearly in Downpatrick. I found it interesting that officials from the Department appeared reluctant to enter into detailed discussions with the subgroup about the location of public-sector jobs, preferring instead to extol the virtues of Workplace 2010. However, the Hansard report shows that one witness said that: “The issue has economic, political, staff and public service elements”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 21, pSG146, col 1]. In that sense, the location of public-sector jobs is absolutely no different to Workplace 2010, which is a massive project that will impact on the delivery of public services, as well as affecting civil servants’ well-being. Thomas Buchanan rightly pointed out that local businesses should not lose out as a result of Workplace 2010. Esmond Birnie cautioned against the risk of awarding long-term financial contracts and getting the financial variables wrong. He identified three key issues: getting the right price, ensuring that the leaseback charges are reasonable, and the risk of additional charges if there is a need to adjust the contract. He also referred to the failure of the PFI project at Balmoral High School and the resulting closure of that building. John Dallat, like Dr Birnie, pointed to the difficulty of diversifying public-sector jobs. Others said that many people from the north-west of the Province have to leave home in the early hours of the morning to travel to work, and that this results in congestion on the motorways and added stress on the drivers. Mr Dallat seems to suffer from the deluded misconception that a devolved Executive would be a panacea for all the problems that exist in Northern Ireland. A mantra that has been expressed by many on the opposite side of the House in recent weeks when we come up against a problem of any kind is that if we just had a devolved Executive, everything would be well — there would be sunshine whenever we required it, it would rain only at night when people were sleeping, the grass would be greener and everything would be so much better. Unfortunately, that is not the reality; any new Executive that there might be at some future date would face many of these problems and would not have all the answers that people seem to expect them to have. Sean Neeson rightly criticised the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude the Alliance Party from the Programme for Government Committee. He said that that was a disservice. I was more strongly in agreement with him at the outset of his speech than I was at the conclusion, particularly when he mentioned relocating jobs to Londonderry. I wonder what his colleague the mayor of Lisburn — Northern Ireland’s second city — would have to say about the former leader of the Alliance Party’s being so keen to take more jobs to Londonderry when there are so few public-sector jobs in Lisburn, which is a larger city. He also criticised the conditions that some civil servants are expected to work in; I think that that criticism was fair. Mr Neeson also called for modern and efficient public offices. Giving evidence to the subgroup, the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance made several references to the difficulties that it was having with Clare House. Subsequently I visited Clare House, and the working conditions in that building are much better than in many of the buildings where civil servants currently work. There is certainly potential to provide better buildings for civil servants under these proposals. Pat Doherty, of Sinn Féin, broadly supported a programme of modernisation. He was critical of privatisation, especially with regard to employment conditions and pensions. He thought that the proposals that we have militate against decentralisation and that there is a lack of will on the part of senior civil servants to pursue a decentralisation policy. I suspect that that may be correct; civil servants may not necessarily be that inclined to decentralise from their current locations. Robin Newton spoke of a need for investment in public-sector buildings and a modernisation programme. He expressed concern about the small and medium-sized businesses that are providing services at the moment, but took some comfort from the fact that, even though the four bidders are multinational companies, they have all indicated that they will use local labour and local companies in carrying out their operations. There were a number of references to the uncertainty in the minds of civil servants about the possibility of relocation and the disruption that it would entail. Tom Elliott said that Workplace 2010 is not just about buildings but about people. He was concerned that not enough time had been taken to consider the lessons from the two pilot projects, and that local economies would suffer. He was also in favour of decentralisation and was one of the individuals who proposed that two Departments should go to Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Margaret Ritchie called for public-sector job location to take account of the needs and economic states of local communities. She mentioned Downpatrick on several occasions during her speech. Ms Ritchie said that existing jobs should be sustained in local areas and called for an affirmative policy of job dispersal. She also believes that Government policy should be consistent. The regional development strategy promotes hub towns, of which public-sector jobs are an important aspect. While others wish to constrain the growth of the public sector and encourage the growth of the private sector, Margaret Ritchie seeks new public-sector jobs in Downpatrick. She wants a bigger public sector, with more administrators and civil servants, and less money for front-line services, such as doctors, nurses and teachers. Roy Beggs recalled the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and how the company was undervalued. He is worried that history might repeat itself. Unlike his East Antrim colleague Mr Neeson, he pointed out that it is not only the west that suffers from a dearth of jobs. He also pointed out that the effect of RPA, and the reduction in the number of councils, has the potential for further job reductions in smaller towns, such as Larne and Carrickfergus. If Lisburn City Council and Carrickfergus Borough Council are to be amalgamated — and who knows what councils will be amalgamated — I think that the folks of Lisburn will be happy to give the folks of Carrick a fair crack of the whip in deciding what might happen. Mrs O’Rawe was the last Member who spoke for Sinn Féin — perhaps not for Sinn Féin, but she was certainly the last Member to speak. She feels that there will be difficulties in dealing with the section 75 issues in Workplace 2010. I have my own concerns about the proposals. The logic of selling property only to rent it back is flawed. If people in the private sector who have acquired property in recent years were asked whether they regretted it, remarkably few would say that they do. Indeed, more people want to buy property in order to rent it out because it is a profitable exercise, as opposed to what the Government are doing, which is selling property and renting it back. Usually, property grows in value, as has been reflected over the past number of years. I am deeply concerned that anyone could propose renovating Dundonald House to current building standards. Dundonald House, which was developed in the 1960s, is well past its sell-by date. One problem with the design and structural quality of that building is that it is a copycat development of something from the Marxist eastern bloc. The original problems with the design and structure of Dundonald House, as highlighted in a report in the 1990s, are the reason that the building now has problems with crumbling concrete and secondary glazing in the structure, and why there is a complete absence of air conditioning. The cost of the renovation work would far exceed that of a new building. In terms of a building, and a Department, that is ripe for relocation, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is tasked with dealing with rural issues but is based in a crumbling building in east Belfast, should be the number-one target for any constituency. Members from quite a number of constituencies have said where they think that Department should be relocated. Arguments can be made for the relocation of DARD, which could be achieved at a reduced cost to the public rather than renovating the existing building. I have been told by people involved in Workplace 2010 that there should not be a problem with that. If it is identified that it would cost more to bring Dundonald House up to acceptable standards than to acquire a new building, the Department could be relocated to another site. I thank all Members who participated in the debate. It has been useful, and I trust that the contributions will assist the Civil Service in reaching its conclusions. Some people suggest that the proposals represent a fait accompli and that nothing more can be done. Nonetheless, the report has been produced, and I trust that due consideration will be given to what is contained therein. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the report from the Committee on the Programme for Government on Workplace 2010 and Public Sector Jobs Location and endorses the findings and conclusions set out in the Report. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to meet at lunchtime today. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the House until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.15 pm. On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Welfare Reform Bill Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for the debate. The Member who is proposing the motion has 15 minutes to speak, with 15 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have a maximum of 10 minutes. Mr O’Dowd: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses deep concern about the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill, particularly the introduction of a new coercive regime into benefit administration, and its impact on a number of vulnerable groups, including neurological patients. I will speak in favour of the motion, but as the day goes on, I may speak in favour of the amendment. Given that the amendment is in the flavour of the motion, I will not speak against it. However, the difference between the motion and the amendment is a technicality that we might clear up as the debate proceeds. The Welfare Reform Bill was introduced in the British House of Commons in July 2006 and has been carried into the 2006-07 session. The British Government intend to extend the Bill to the North by way of a welfare reform Order — that is, government by undemocratic direction. The Bill has five main components, but the provisions that we will debate attract the most public attention. First is the introduction of a new style of benefit — the employment and support allowance (ESA) — that is to replace incapacity benefit. The main tenets of that benefit are that during the 13 weeks after first making a claim, claimants will be assessed and placed in one of two groups. Group one, which is the work-related activity group, is for those who are capable of participating in work-focused interviews and activities. Group two, which is the support group, is for those who have been assessed as severely functionally limited — that is a rather regrettable term. People who are in that group will not have to participate in such work-focused activities, but they can choose to do so. During those first 13 weeks, all new claimants will receive a basic award while their assessment is completed. It is unclear how that assessment will be carried out in the North. In England, private companies are to be used. However, lobby groups in England are uncovering already some disquieting revelations about those very companies. Claimants in the support group will be entitled to an additional support component payment, which is likely to be higher than that that is given to those who are in the work-related activity group. Each claimant in the work-related activity group — this is a bit technical, but we will get through it — will have to agree an action plan with their personal adviser. It is not clear what qualifications, if any, are required of personal advisers. In fact, a personal adviser to someone who has severe and complex medical needs may have no medical background whatever. If a claimant is unable to attend an interview without good cause, a sanction will be imposed. “Good cause” has not been defined, but it appears that the caseworker will determine what is “good cause”. However, as I have said, that caseworker may not have any knowledge of neurological, mental or physical health conditions. Although today’s debate focuses on the provisions that relate to changes in incapacity benefit, the Bill also proposes changes to several other areas, including housing benefit and council-tax relief in England. When translated to here, it will mean that when new Labour refers to welfare reform, it means possible cuts in housing benefit and rates relief and a possible increase in taxation. We are debating the implications of the Bill on vulnerable groups, including neurological patients, people with multiple sclerosis (MS), brain injuries, epilepsy and many other complaints. It will also include people with mental-health issues and those restricted by a physical disability. The Bill will force, coerce and bully such people into compulsory participation in a practice that might see unqualified civil servants making medical decisions about people with complex health and medical issues. The practice of compulsory participation for such claimants with complex health problems in work-related activity groups is inappropriate in principle, given the fluctuating, and at times unpredictable, nature of some of those health problems. The Bill attempts to cover up the practice of forcing people with complex health and medical needs back to work as an alternative therapy — a crude form of the “work-never-killed-anyone” analysis. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in Britain, which administers the Pathways to Work pilot scheme, admits that its therapists are unfamiliar with neurological conditions. Are we being told that the section of the local Social Security Agency that deals with incapacity benefit, which will undoubtedly enact the Welfare Reform Bill here, is bursting at the seams with neurological experts? I think not. The Social Security Agency is not qualified in that regard. Mr S Wilson: The Minister in England has made it clear that there will be extensive training for staff and that he is happy for voluntary groups with expertise in identifying mental-health problems to be involved in that training. Does that not assure the Member that at least some people with expertise from interested groups will be helping the staff who will be making the decisions? Mr O’Dowd: The Member is correct; the Minister made such a statement. However, are we to say that civil servants working in the Social Security Agency or other Departments that administer benefits will be trained to be psychologists or neurologists? Mr McCann: Does Mr O’Dowd recall a similar exercise that was carried out four or five years ago? People on long-term benefits, including those who were severely disabled, mentally ill and those with a whole range of medical disabilities, were asked to come to a benefit office only to find that the staff were unqualified. Many of those people found that their benefits were suspended through no fault of their own. Does the Member agree that there is a very strong possibility that, regardless of the level of training, lay people will be working in a medical environment, which will have a knock-on effect right across the community? Mr O’Dowd: I do agree. It is also clear that there is no regulatory body for therapists. Any voluntary group can set itself up with therapists and be introduced into the system, and that is unfair. Indeed, the Bill refers to “alternative medical treatments”. The Department for Work and Pensions in England is not the Department of Health; the Department for Social Development (DSD) is not the Department of Health here. The DSD is not qualified to hand out treatment. Treatment is not offered by GPs or consultants or by the Department of Health, but by someone appointed by a Department with no medical or health knowledge. Patients are told that, if they do not adhere to advice given by unqualified individuals, their benefits will be cut. Vulnerable people in our society have been placed in an impossible position, and those with mental-health issues are being put under added pressure. Proposals of conditionality may result in undue pressure being put on claimants to sign up to inappropriate or unachievable action plans rather than risk a reduction in their benefits. Pilot schemes in Britain have already thrown up cases of vulnerable people being forced into jobs and scenarios that they were not ready for, and, more importantly, for which they were not given any form of proper support and guidance. The British Government tell us that the main principle of the Welfare Reform Bill is to support and encourage more people in receipt of incapacity benefits to move into employment, where they are able to do so. No one can argue with that; unfortunately, the Bill’s remaining 264 clauses are more to do with reducing the cost of incapacity benefit than a structured and properly managed plan for a return to work. The Bill does not address the reluctance of employers to accept potential new employees whose records show long-term receipt of incapacity benefit. It does nothing to remove the physical and mental obstacles placed in the way of people who wish to come off incapacity benefits and return to work. Recent statistics confirm that fewer than 40% of employers would hire someone with a mental illness, with 70% stating that to employ someone with schizophrenia would either be impossible or very difficult. There is little point in encouraging people towards work if employers are unwilling to employ them. Furthermore, encountering such prejudice or discrimination can have a devastating effect on the mental health of an individual who has successfully come off benefits only to have to return to those benefits in a worse state of health. The vast majority of people with disabilities, mental-health issues and neurological conditions want to play their part in the workforce. Some, due to their conditions, may not be able to do so. We should recognise that and legislate for those circumstances in a compassionate manner. The Government must take further action to reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental-health problems. Only last week, Rethink (NI) launched a campaign on the steps of Stormont, calling on people to rethink their attitudes to mental health. However, the Government have not played their role, particularly in eradicating prejudices among employers. People with the conditions that I have described have been to the forefront of campaigning against the discriminatory employment practices that excluded them. They want to remove the barriers to employment; the Government have a duty to act. The Welfare Reform Bill is not about ensuring that those people can play their part in the workforce in a properly structured and managed fashion: it is about forcing people into jobs that may well have a detrimental effect on their health and well-being. What is required? For a start, we need an Assembly and an Executive to prevent the Welfare Reform Bill becoming reality. Another good starting point would be the enactment of legislation based on the desire to help people back to work, not simply to save money. We must remove the barriers to employment for people with mental-health difficulties and physical and neurological conditions, and make proper provision for those who — we must accept — may not be able to return to work. Any review of individual cases should be carried out by properly qualified doctors and medical teams — not civil servants or private companies, as is proposed in the English Bill. Most of all, people should be treated with dignity. Rather than brand them as spongers, any review of the welfare system should ensure that people with mental-health difficulties, disabilities or neurological conditions are made to feel valued. I ask the House to support the motion. Mrs D Kelly: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “groups” and insert “, especially those people with mental ill health.” The SDLP’s amendment is not intended to dilute the motion, but to clarify the impact that the Welfare Reform Bill will have on people with mental ill health. The original motion, in specifying neurological patients, was somewhat confusing, as the definition of a neurological patient is wide-ranging in its medical interpretation. However, I thank the Member for Upper Bann Mr O’Dowd for expanding on that in his contribution. The Welfare Reform Bill introduces the employment and support allowance, which will replace incapacity benefit. The vast majority of ESA claimants will have to take part in work-focused and work-related activities in order to obtain the full rate of benefit. People assessed as severely functionally limited will not have to attend interviews or engage in specified activities to receive the full rate of benefit. This latter group is known as a support group. However, there are concerns that this mechanism will deny people with severe and enduring mental-health conditions opportunities for supported employment. 2.15 pm Mr S Wilson: Does the Member not accept that the current system does just that? It stigmatises people by implying that those on incapacity benefit are incapable of work. Even though nine out of 10 people go on to incapacity benefit hoping to get back to work, of those who stay on it for two years or more, most stay on it until they retire or die. The real stigma is being presented by the current system, not the one proposed. Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for his point. The SDLP is not opposed to welfare reform. We share the view of many leading charities and others that people who abuse the system must be rooted out. They deprive our society of much needed funding for schools and hospitals and give genuine claimants a bad name. In setting out the case for reform, the Green Paper states that: “Ensuring citizens have the right to enter the world of work is a fundamental responsibility of any modern government.” The SDLP has long recognised the social injustice that is inflicted by the poverty trap of benefit dependency. The fact that one child in three continues to live in poverty must be a key challenge for a restored Assembly to tackle. The SDLP welcomes the opportunities for employment in the North presented by the Irish Government in its National Development Plan, much of which mirrors ideas and strategies of the SDLP’s ‘North South Makes Sense’ campaign. However, the motion rightly calls on the House to express deep concern at the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill, a view shared by many leading non-governmental organisations which advocate on behalf of those with disabilities and mental ill-health, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists. People with mental-health problems are one of the most excluded groups in society. According to the social exclusion unit, only 24% of adults with mental-health problems are in work, which is the lowest employment rate of any of the main groups of disabled people. Added to that, fewer than four in 10 employers say that they would recruit someone with a mental-health problem. Employers are key to the success of welfare reform, but there is nothing in the Bill to encourage them, or ensure that they play as full a role as possible in helping people to move from benefit to work and remain there. Tax incentives could provide such encouragement. The SDLP is also concerned that staff assessing an individual’s capability to work do not have appropriate training in mental health to assess people for employment and support allowance, and for supporting people into work. The Bill has no proposals to increase training for support staff who will have to make important decisions on a person’s suitability, nor is there any cross-reference to the role that allied health professionals, especially occupational therapists, could play in making such assessments. Members know about the current inadequate provision of staff and the long waiting lists. Given the key role of occupational therapists in the rehabilitation of people with mental ill health, this will place increased demands on an already overstretched resource. There is no sign of Government joined-up thinking here. The use of sanctions is a major cause for concern. If claimants do not comply with the conditionality criteria, which are: attend work-focused interviews; attend work-focused health-related assessments; and engage in work-related activities, they risk losing up to 25% of their benefit right away. Unemployment, and the ensuing financial hardship, is a contributing factor to mental ill health, with increased stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and depression. Mr P Ramsey: Currently, there is no the right of appeal in respect of ESA in the Bill. The Member referred to the support groups who are concerned about the fear and anxiety that people, particularly those with mental-health problems, will have as a result of these customer-unfriendly forms that they will have to complete. Will the Member support the call for the retention of the independent appeals service? Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I support his call. The right of appeal is a fundamental concern that many organisations have expressed about the Bill. The threat to remove benefit without putting proper support in place can only be seen as punitive. There are insufficient guarantees that the right support will be available, and there are not enough vocational training rehabilitation facilities available at accessible locations in Northern Ireland. The community and voluntary sector fights the good fight to fill the gaps, but it has to continuously chase European funding or seek the crumbs from the table of health and social services. The Welfare Reform Bill is long on regulation but short on evidence-based approaches. There are no guarantees that the staff who will be the decision-makers have the appropriate training and skills, or that the doctors who conduct the medical reviews have the time or even the specialist mental-health training to do so. In the past, doctors were put under pressure to put people onto incapacity benefit in order to reduce the unemployment statistics; now there is a new form of social definition of medical incapacity in order to push doctors the other way. More needs to be done to seek the support and co-operation of potential employers as the key, and the right of appeal is limited. Madam Speaker, I support the amendment to the motion and will take advice later on how neurological patients can also be included in it. Mr N Dodds: This is an important piece of legislation, which has already gone through the legislative process in the House of Commons. First, the Northern Ireland Assembly decided that there would be parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in welfare, benefits and social security legislation. It took that very sensible decision on a consensual basis because the consequences of not implementing parity would be too awful to contemplate. It would create a financial black hole, and the resources of the Department of Finance and Personnel would be taken up almost exclusively in trying to deal with differences between here and the rest of the United Kingdom. It would cause considerable inconvenience and disadvantage to all communities here in trying to access entitlements compared to the rest of the country. It would have a devastating impact on the ability and ease of people to move freely between different parts of the United Kingdom and to move, live and work elsewhere. Northern Ireland would have to have new and different computer systems and different administrative arrangements, which would cost a fortune. Parity was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do now. Any future devolved Administration that does not go down that path would be playing into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty’s Treasury, who would be delighted if Northern Ireland were to go its own way on benefits and social security. Breaking parity would give them the opportunity to consider a great many other issues for a financial package for Northern Ireland. Mr S Wilson: Does the Member see any irony in the fact that Members opposite, especially Sinn Féin Members, suggest that we should go our own way? Those same Members would violently and vehemently oppose the regionalisation of public-sector pay, for example, but have no difficulty with the regionalisation of public benefits. Mr N Dodds: The Member is quite right to point out that dichotomy. In a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, an Alliance Party Member proposed that we should increase pensions by £5 per pensioner. We do not need a debate in the House to get consensus that £5 is not enough and that we need to increase it by far more. However, when it was pointed out that the cost would have to come out of our own resources, no one could say where the hundreds of millions of pounds should come from. The principle of parity is well established; it has been in existence for the social security arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for decades, and it should continue. However, it is right and proper that, as the legislation proceeds, Northern Ireland Ministers, whether direct rule or devolved, should express their views to their colleagues about the arrangements that should apply to all our citizens for social security benefits. The same applies to provision in the Bill for incapacity benefit claimants. The principle has been enunciated that there should be support for those who cannot work and encouragement for those who can and wish to return to work. No artificial barriers should be put in their way, and the system should try to make it worthwhile for those who can work to do so. Statistics show that the difficulty with the current system is that many of those who go onto incapacity benefit stay on it for many years. At first, claimants do not believe that they will be on benefit for an extended period, but circumstances force them to stay on it. Throughout the country, over half of those on incapacity benefit have been on it for over five years. That compares to 43% in 1997; so the number on long-term incapacity benefit is rising. The number of under-25-year-olds on incapacity benefit has risen by 71%, almost three quarters, since 1997. I talk about these and other issues in my constituency advice surgery with many people. I am sure that other Members do likewise. What many people want is to have support when it is needed, but to be able to move forward when they feel they can. The present system does not provide that flexibility. Mr P Ramsey: Does the Member not accept that support groups are genuinely concerned that the main focus of the Welfare Reform Bill is on a reduction of benefit costs rather than on helping those with chronic medical problems? Mr N Dodds: I will come to that point. I have already said that while the DUP generally supports the principle of parity, there are issues to be addressed. People are concerned. The issue mentioned is the capacity of advisers to recognise those suffering from mental illness. That point, raised by organisations and charities, is important and needs to be firmly addressed. Over 40% of benefit claimants suffer from mental-health problems. If secondary mental-health effects are included, that number rises to two out of every three claimants. That is very important. It is essential that advisers are properly trained and equipped, and that they get the input and assistance that my hon Friend Mr Wilson, the Member for East Antrim, referred to. My party will push strongly for that. I am concerned about other aspects of the Bill too. It is unnecessarily complicated. The new employment and support allowance will create six levels or categories into which claimants will fall. Trying to explain to claimants how the benefit system works is already complicated. However, under this proposed legislation, distinction will be made between non-contributory claimants who fail to go to work-focused interviews; contributory claimants who fail to go to work-focused interviews; non-contributory claimants who receive the work-related activity component; contributory claimants who receive that component; those deemed to have limited capability to work who will receive the support component; and severely disabled who currently receive the disablement allowance. It is extremely complicated. One can predict a rise in the number of complaints to constituency offices and other agencies because of that. These concerns are well-founded, and there needs to be much more information provided. The Bill should have been streamlined. The intent behind it is good, but it is unnecessarily complex, and there are potential pitfalls. I could have made many other points. The approach of simply sitting back and doing nothing fails the people who are most in need of support and help. I am concerned about parties that simply take the attitude that the Welfare Reform Bill is no good and that the Assembly should ditch it. Parties must be extremely careful — I have not heard the proposal of a single alternative that would not cost millions of pounds by breaking the parity principle and thereby taking money away from those who need it, namely claimants and others who need that support. Parties must focus on the work that needs to be done, particularly on training and information. Some of the proposals that have been made today concern me. 2.30 pm Mr Kennedy: This is an important debate — and obviously many of my party colleagues share that view. [Laughter.] At least the Marie-Céleste was staffed. I have no doubt that my colleagues are elsewhere in the Building or in their constituencies, undermining the efforts of those Members who are here. It is — [Interruption.] Madam Speaker: Order. Mr Kennedy: If Members want more time to interrupt me further, that is fine. The Welfare Reform Bill that is currently going through Parliament will not apply to Northern Ireland. I understand that a separate Order in Council will be made for Northern Ireland, which will be based on the provisions of that Bill. Although the Ulster Unionist Party is concerned that Northern Ireland has the highest rates of economic inactivity in the UK, those rates are comparable with some regions in Great Britain. It is doubtful that the Welfare Reform Bill will address that problem, and pilot schemes in Great Britain have had little impact on the levels of economic inactivity. A range of mental-health charities and interest groups have criticised the Bill. However, the charities, and the Ulster Unionist Party, are more supportive of those elements of the Bill that seek to empower claimants to return to work. In February 2006, some 112,996 people were claiming incapacity benefits, and 169,691 were claiming disability living allowance in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Bill affects a considerable number of people. Rethink, a leading national mental-health charity, has welcomed the provision of more support for people on incapacity benefit because many people with severe mental illness want to work, but have been left without the necessary help and support to do so. However, Rethink is concerned about the Bill’s proposals to disqualify people from benefit or reduce their benefit on certain grounds. Claimants’ benefits could be reduced if they do not attend a work-focused interview or undertake work-related activity without good cause. Jobcentre Plus staff do not know enough about severe mental illness to make judgements about whether someone fails to attend for no good reason or because of a serious deterioration in their condition. That could lead to those on low incomes having their benefits cut unfairly. Rethink is also concerned about proposals that would effectively disqualify from entitlement to benefit anyone who behaves in an improper fashion or fails to take medical advice for no good reason. The treatment of severe mental illness is often a case of trial and error, and medication often causes severe side effects. If someone stopped or reduced their medication because of such severe side effects, would that be considered a good reason? What would happen if someone disagreed with a psychiatrist’s diagnosis or tried complementary therapy instead? Those are the aspects of concern to Rethink. Under the Pathways to Work rollout many people may require support to work that they have never been offered before. The provision of cognitive behavioural therapy, which is woefully inadequate throughout the NHS, is particularly welcome. However, Rethink is concerned by early research findings commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions, which states that: “there is no statistically significant evidence that the policy has any impact on those who report having one health problem that is mental illness.” The Department for Work and Pensions needs to think more widely about the sort of support that could work for people with mental illness and should consult with service users and carers. The Government have not taken enough action to reduce the prejudice and real discrimination of employers. There is little point in pushing people towards work if employers are prejudiced against giving jobs to people with severe mental illness. Fewer than 40% of employers say that they would employ someone with mental illness. Some 75% of employers have said that employing someone with schizophrenia would be impossible or very difficult. The Work and Pensions Committee said that the Government’s action on employers was “wholly inadequate”. It still is. New Zealand spends 25 times more per head of population than the UK Government on anti-stigma campaigns. We need to challenge the stigma of mental illness if we are going to help people get back to work. Overall the Welfare Reform Bill focuses on supporting more people into work, and that is a welcome aim. Thirty-five percent of people with long-term mental-health issues, who are economically inactive, would like to get back to work, as compared to 28% of people with other health problems. People with mental-health issues are often keen and willing to return to work but lack the support to be able to achieve that goal. Many proposals in the Bill demonstrate a greater awareness of the needs of people with mental-health issues. However, additional thought needs to be given to the practical outworking of the Bill and the allocation of resources for appropriate training as necessary. That is to ensure that those with mental-health issues are not stigmatised or penalised by lack of understanding on the part of personal advisers or other professionals involved in the assessment of their ability to participate in compulsory activities. With those brief observations, provided helpfully by someone else, I give broad assent to the motion. [Laughter.] Madam Speaker: I commend the Member for his honesty. Mr McCarthy: I support the motion. The Bill, although containing many real concerns for a lot of people, aims to support more people back into work, and that has to be welcomed. Members recognise the wishes of many people — particularly those with mental-health issues — to get back into work, but they lack the support to be able to achieve that. Many proposals in the Bill demonstrate a greater awareness of the needs of people with mental-health issues. More thought is required on the practical outworking of the Bill and the allocation of funds for the necessary training. That will ensure that those with mental-health issues are not stigmatised or penalised — as has already been mentioned by other Members — by a lack of understanding on the part of the professionals involved in the assessment of their ability to participate in compulsory activities. As the Alliance Party’s health spokesperson, I have worries that the people already burdened by ill health will find the contents of the Welfare Reform Bill to be an added concern and possibly a disincentive for them to offer themselves once again for employment. It appears that the Bill will introduce a new coercive benefit-administration regime. I am apprehensive that vulnerable neurological patients will be forced either into work when they are still unfit or they will find themselves on lower benefits. I am also concerned about the proposed large-scale involvement of private-sector companies, some of which have an established record of incompetence in respect of patients who have long-term mental-health problems. The proposals in the Bill are underpinned by the new ESA, which will replace incapacity benefit and income support that is paid on the grounds of incapacity for new claimants. Mr P Ramsey: There is a worry that those private companies will be more interested in profits than in the welfare of the customers whom they are supposed to be looking after. Does the Member agree that if private companies are to be involved in any part of the proposed welfare reform, that involvement should be in education and training only? Mr McCarthy: I agree with Mr Ramsey. That is a concern, and, as I said earlier, the private companies’ record of incompetence in relation to patients who have long-term mental illness is clear. It is likely that the majority of claimants will have to take part in work-focused interviews and work-related activities in order to qualify for the full benefit rate. The Bill also obliges a claimant to show good cause for having failed to attend a work-focused interview. The explanation for that failure must be given within five days of the day on which the interview was to take place. That timescale is too short and should be increased. Other aspects of the Bill must also be addressed. The Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment, and I hope that the powers that be reconsider the real effects that the Welfare Reform Bill may have on many of our constituents. Mr S Wilson: As the Member for North Belfast Nigel Dodds stated, the DUP supports the Welfare Reform Bill. It does so for good reason: the Bill aims to move people away from benefits and into opportunities for work. When many people who get incapacity benefit first receive it, they state that they do not wish to remain on it. Economic prosperity in Northern Ireland has been rising over the past number of years, but certain groups have been left behind. I am sure that Members will have witnessed that in their advice centres. Such groups may comprise those people who find themselves on benefits because they have been deemed incapable of working. The situation is black and white: either one can work, or one is incapable of working. There is no recognition or help for the people who want to work, would like the opportunity to work or would like support to get them back to work, but who, due to their incapacity, have been deemed incapable of working. Those people either qualify for benefit and live in poverty — because the benefit is insufficient to give them a decent standard of living, as I am sure all Members accept — or they have to work. There is no in-between. One important benefit of the Welfare Reform Bill is that it opens up opportunities for those people. However, when the term “welfare reform” is used or when there is an indication that there might be a change in how benefits are assessed, Sinn Féin and, to a lesser extent, the SDLP have a knee-jerk reaction that implies that change must be bad in some way. Mrs D Kelly: I said that the SDLP welcomes and supports welfare reform. That was not a knee-jerk reaction. The SDLP has stated its concerns about the impact and implications of some of the measures in the Bill, and about some of the glaring gaps. The SDLP is supported in those observations by many leading charities, including such a strong advocate as the Royal College of Psychiatrists. 2.45 pm Mr S Wilson: When the Member’s support for the Bill is hedged about with so many qualifications, one must ask whether she really supports the Bill or wants the best of both worlds. On one hand, she supports it because she wants to see disabled people lifted out of poverty; on the other, she finds a thousand reasons to oppose it. She cannot have it both ways. As the hon Member for North Belfast Mr Dodds said, there are concerns, but the general principle should be supported if Members genuinely wish those who are regarded as disadvantaged to be lifted out of poverty. There will always be this sort of left-wing, knee-jerk reaction from Sinn Féin. One can only hope that Sinn Féin’s rhetoric will be diluted when it is faced with real choices. The former Minister of Education embraced wholeheartedly the private finance initiatives and PPP schemes that he had ranted and raved and railed against before becoming Minister. If Members do not go down the road of parity as outlined by Mr Dodds, benefit claimants and others in Northern Ireland will arrive at a position of inequality with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, would love that, because it would reduce the subvention to Northern Ireland. It is clear from surveys that many people on incapacity benefit would love the opportunity to go back to work. Some would not be able to go back immediately, and would need support and advice on what work would be available to them: hence the personal capability assessments, the work-focused interviews and the support that would be required once they were employed. Members are right to be concerned that that underpinning support must be of good quality and do the job that it is designed for. I have no difficulty with questions being asked about that or with seeking to ensure that if that is what is promised in the Bill, then that is what is delivered on the ground. Those issues should be the focus of Members’ concerns. We should not dismiss the Bill as something that will hurt or disadvantage people who currently receive incapacity benefit. The other big issue that must be addressed has not been mentioned so far. It is one thing to say that we should support people and put them back into work. That is the supply side of the equation. However, the demand side of the equation must also be addressed. Will there be sufficient demand from employers to facilitate those people? I have checked with officials, and I understand that the Pathways to Work programme in Northern Ireland concentrates on public-sector employers. It is important that there be a variety of options, and Members must find a way to encourage the voluntary and private sectors to provide places for people to move from receiving benefits into work. |