Civil Service: Equal Pay Claim
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 28 September 2009, 3:30 pm
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I advise Members that a substantial number of individual equal pay cases has been lodged with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET). I, therefore, warn Members that they must not refer to specific cases and must confine their remarks to the general topic of the motion. Should any Member disregard what I have said, I will immediately intervene. If that is clear, we will now proceed.
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to move the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.
Peter Weir (DUP)
Although I am the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I will not speak in that capacity in the debate; I will speak as a DUP member. I understand that, similarly, the Chairperson of the Committee will speak on behalf of Sinn Féin.
The Civil Service equal pay claim is an important topic that deserves to be treated with respect and realism. In doing so, the Assembly cannot allow the tone of the debate to become enmeshed in some of the myths surrounding the issue. Occasionally, the media have given the unfortunate impression that the 9,000 staff who are affected are all female and are all from the Catholic community.
It may well be that a majority of affected staff are female and Catholic. However, it is misleading and, indeed, discourteous, particularly to male and Protestant employees who are affected. It also gives an impression that, in some way, the matter has been delayed deliberately from a perverse sectarian motive. That is not the case.
I thank the Member for raising that point. He is quite right. I believe that, by the nature of the issue, the vast majority of workers who are affected are female. By unhappy coincidence, some element of a majority of staff in the lower pay grades might be Catholic. Therefore, there might be that bias in the figures. However, that is not the central issue, and I have never made it so. Occasionally, some of the media have misrepresented what I have said in that regard.
Peter Weir (DUP)
To be fair, I would not accuse the proposer of the motion of ever making such comments. Unfortunately, some of the media’s presentation of the matter has been simplistic and misleading. That has created a degree of anger among some of the people who are affected.
Another myth is that the matter is focused purely on Northern Ireland. In fact, there have been issues with regard to equal pay and back pay in Departments across the water. Some Members are also involved in local government. Again, the matter is not exclusively that of central government; it exists, both in Northern Ireland and across the water, in a range of councils, where there have been single-status issues, for example.
To add to the complexity of the problem; in England, some of those local government issues have been tackled in tribunals. We have seen a situation in which a trade union reached a deal with the local council and then found itself being sued by its own members who felt that they had not got a good enough deal. Such situations add to the complexity of the matter.
The worst myth of all is that politicians, particularly the Minister and his predecessors, have been dragging their feet and deliberately do not want to solve the issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the situation logically, if there were an opportunity to solve the problem as soon and as fairly as possible, why would any politician in his or her right mind not take it? A lot of work has been done, but we are not necessarily at the end of the process. When the previous motion on the issue was brought before the House in June, a number of us said that although we were happy to support the motion and wanted to see the issue resolved as soon as possible, the three-month time frame was not realistic.
Since June, there has been a reasonable amount of progress. The technical side of it, including the examination of the grades, has been completed. Rather than being a delaying tactic by management, that part of the process was agreed between management and the trade unions. Therefore, the accusation that that was a stalling tactic is misplaced.
There have been detailed discussions with the trade unions that are, by definition, private, and picking over the details of those would not be helpful to the process. As part of those discussions, I understand that a proposal was recently made to the trade union. As was indicated, because of individual rights and the fact that a large number of the employees has sought tribunal action, even when agreement is reached between management and the trade unions, a considerable amount of work will have to be done with individual employees. It is clear that there is a legal obligation. The Minister and the Executive are committed to meeting their obligations and ensuring that the process is fair.
Another reason why the process has taken so long, and why it is important to get the right solution, is that there is no point in reaching a settlement that cures the initial problem but stores up a new set of problems and a new set of claims that will have to be addressed in five, 10 or 15 years. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past and ensure that the frustrating and difficult position that staff have been placed in is never repeated and that the solution is sufficiently robust to survive future events.
Considerable work has been done, but there is more to do. It would be wrong of us to pretend that the matter will be sorted out overnight. We should ensure that the process is fair and that the dispute is resolved as soon as is practical.
Peter Weir (DUP)
I commend the Minister and his predecessors for their efforts to resolve this very difficult situation so that all staff receive a fair deal.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am speaking as a Sinn Féin Member and not as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue that needs to be resolved. As other Members have said, there are ongoing negotiations with the British Treasury on this and other monetary issues. Hopefully, the Minister will give us an update on those in his response.
Although some of the civil servants affected by the issue are male, it is agreed that most of them are women, so I want to speak about the gender pay gap that exists. Despite legislation on equal pay, including the Equal Pay Act 1970, the 1984 amended version and the Sex Discrimination Order 1976, women’s average hourly earnings are only 83·4% of men’s. Therefore, in many cases, women who do the same job as men still get paid less. That gender pay gap widens with age and qualifications.
There is an onus on employers to have fair and non-discriminatory systems in the workplace, as those are essential components that contribute to overall productivity in the employment arena.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that that gender pay gap starts to close, because women have the right to equal pay for equal work. All employers need to adopt equal pay policies in conformance with legislation, and the Government should be leading by example.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for that point. Going back to the issue that we are debating here, this dispute affected women who were not only routinely denied promotion opportunities because of their gender, but received less pay than male colleagues for the same work. Many of those female civil servants are now retired, and they should not have to wait until agreement is reached between the Minister of Finance and the British Treasury. However, I am conscious that negotiations are ongoing.
It is well over a year since the former Minister of Finance gave a commitment that the situation would be resolved and the pay inequalities dealt with. The people who are owed that back pay, and union officials working on their behalf, have been frustrated by the delay in reaching a negotiated settlement. I am led to believe that a review by the Department of technical grades 1 and 2 has been completed, and that NIPSA is studying and discussing its findings with its members. Sinn Féin is asking that the issue be resolved as soon as possible, and that those who are owed back pay be given it. We support the motion.
David McNarry (UUP)
This is an issue about workers and their rights, and none are more concerning or compelling than a person’s right to pay, or, in this case, to back pay. Although I appreciate the technical arguments, those workers have been caught up in — and I am being charitable — well-intentioned promises of action and delivery times which have so far failed to materialise.
The motion is a timely reminder of what the then Finance Minister Peter Robinson announced to the House in May 2008. He said that up to 9,000 junior civil servants had been underpaid. No question of prevarication on the issue: 9,000 people underpaid. Robinson estimated an individual cap of £20,000 at an estimated cost of £100 million. If the back pay could have been settled then, would DFP have got away with £100 million of borrowing?
It says a lot for DFP’s financial management that there is now big pressure to borrow in order to settle, and still it does not know how much to borrow. This is borrowing, not scrambling around the Departments to divvy up on efficiencies; this is borrowing to fill the hole. It also says a lot that no one is denying that the figure of £100 million may have doubled or even trebled in the final settlement, and that the Treasury will be called in to bail out the Department irrespective of the figure. Borrowing to pay the settlement it will be. Where will the money then come from to meet in the region of £25 million for year-on-year consequences? Will the Government pay up on the settlement and then dismiss the workforce because they cannot afford to employ them? If that will ever be the case, we will reject that as an outcome.
I heard Robinson — now the First Minister — referring to the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP as “economically illiterate”. The SDLP is able to speak for itself. For my part, however, that sounds as if the DUP is rattled and caught out again, as was illustrated by the Finance Minister’s behaviour earlier today. We have been spelling out the challenges for six months, and I can assure the Minister that I can count and I can add up. So, too, can our leading economists.
The media have been carrying headlines such as “The Executive could do more for the recession” and “Executive under fire over Budget review”. Even the Minister has triple-somersaulted from his position only last week, when he finally admitted that there was a black hole, to telling the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ that the DUP will introduce big cuts in public spending and reintroduce water charges.
As for his remarks earlier about my figure of 15%, the source was Eamon Ryan, the Minister of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in the Republic. I rest my case on that source.
When cuts are contemplated, it is understandable that pressure will mount, and access to funds will become even more difficult. Junior staff in that workforce — not the high flyers — many of whom are constituents, will be nervous when their claims are held back longer. That is the situation that we will face. It would be helpful to hear assurances from the Minister today. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the SDLP motion.
Anna Lo (Alliance)
I am not a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, but I have received correspondence from my constituents, who are among the 9,000 current and former civil servants who are waiting for the issue to be resolved. Most of those civil servants are low-paid female clerical staff who earn around £12,000 or £13,000 a year, and many are staff on the front line who work in stressful jobs in social security offices. They are looking forward to receiving six years of back pay, which amounts to up to £20,000. Many people feel that there has been much talk and that the money should have been in their pockets by now.
It is no wonder that people are frustrated; a year after Peter Robinson’s announcement of the settlement, the Department introduced a grading review of staff in TG1 and TG2 jobs. Understandably, people became suspicious that it was a ploy to stall the whole process. People are concerned and feel that those delays will make them lose out on their rightful entitlement eventually. They are concerned that they will lose thousands of pounds in back pay every year that the settlement is delayed and that the back pay could be paid from a later date.
Staff accept that it is a complex issue that must be worked through. A new, robust system should be put in place to prevent a similar situation in the future. However, people have been waiting for a long time. We have not only a legal obligation to settle those equal pay claims but a moral responsibility to achieve fairness and equality. Staff have made thousands of claims to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. If those cases proceed, they will be time-consuming and costly for everyone. A negotiated settlement should be offered to NIPSA urgently to resolve the issue within the next few months. I support the motion.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
As previous contributors have said, there is no doubt that this is an important issue that is causing real concern for the 9,000 civil servants who are directly affected by the equal pay claim. In their grades, 9,000 men and women who work at the coalface of the Civil Service have not been historically rewarded with equal pay for work of equal value.
I listened closely to the proposer — as I always do — and, although I do not doubt the sincerity of his concern one iota — as I do not doubt anybody else’s concern for civil servants who are affected by the matter — it is somewhat rich for the SDLP to lecture successive DUP Ministers of Finance and Personnel about the issue.
Why is this issue being tackled now, and why are we discussing it today? It is because the then DUP Minister of Finance and Personnel Peter Robinson made a commitment to resolve it. If, or rather when, this matter is resolved, it will be due to the efforts of DUP Ministers of Finance and Personnel.
The same cannot be said of previous SDLP Ministers of Finance and Personnel. The inequalities of Civil Service pay existed when SDLP Finance Ministers were in post. At that time, even though those inequalities existed, and those Ministers knew it existed, no offers, no commitments and no efforts were made to resolve this important issue, and it was allowed to persist. The SDLP can criticise DUP Ministers of Finance and Personnel for not resolving the matter in the sort of artificial timescale that that party wants to construct, but at least there is an effort and a commitment, and there will be a resolution because of the efforts of DUP Ministers.
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
Does the Member agree that the majority of those who are waiting and who are, in most cases, dependent on the resolution of this issue are not in the least interested whether it is resolved by a DUP Minister, an Alliance Party Minister or an SDLP Minister? All they want to see is the matter resolved and the money put in their hands before much longer.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
I do not disagree with the Member; I believe that those who are affected want the matter resolved and do not particularly care whose fault it is. However, it is difficult to take the criticism and the implication from the SDLP Benches that there is prevarication and delay on the part of DUP Ministers. This issue sat, at the early part of the decade, unresolved — untouched, in fact — by SDLP Ministers of Finance and Personnel. Criticism of the DUP is unwarranted; in fact, criticism of the SDLP is warranted, because that party did absolutely nothing to resolve the matter satisfactorily.
In the previous debate on the issue on 1 June 2009, as Mr Weir said, many of us warned that the artificial timescales that were being demanded of the Minister of Finance and Personnel were completely unrealistic, given the complexity of the issue. By their very nature, these issues can be difficult, protracted and complex. That is why it has taken time to get to this point. No one with any sense would want us to rush in and settle the matter at an incorrect figure and get it wrong, not just for the civil servants who are affected now but for future civil servants. We must not store up trouble for the long term.
The job evaluation that was carried out was completely necessary, and, as Mr Weir said, that was agreed to by the unions because they could see the need for it. When we judge what equal pay is, we must also know what represents work of equal value. That helped to solidify for negotiations those figures that we are looking to settle on, and also ensured that when the matter is dealt with, it is dealt with once and for all so that we do not have to come back to something similar in five years or ten years’ time.
There are financial implications in resolving this issue. The SDLP says that it wants the Minister of Finance and Personnel to pay this claim now, but it reserves the right to criticise how he would pay for it. I await the day when the matter is settled, for there is no doubt that the SDLP will again complain about how the Minister of Finance and Personnel will propose to pay for the claim. There are implications for the Executive, not just in paying the claim now but on an ongoing basis. I am well aware of the effect that a settlement could have on paying higher rates of pay if people are moved into different pay bands, and on how some civil servants perform outsourced work for other parts of the Civil Service in the United Kingdom.
There is also a need to arrive at a proper figure, not just for the Minister of Finance and Personnel in dealing with his Executive colleagues but for potential further negotiations with the Treasury. Even if the issue were resolved this afternoon, there is a need to consult the unions so that they can assess the figures and ballot their members on whether to accept the settlement. Given that situation, delays are inevitable.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
I support the civil servants, but patience is required to resolve the matter correctly.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
Tacaím leis an rún seo. I support the motion and commend the Members who have, once again, brought the matter to the Floor of the House.
I believe that everyone recognises the importance of finding a fair and genuine solution to this long-running saga. The only people who have suffered are the thousands of workers who were denied their rights to fair treatment and rates of pay. The Assembly has, by and large and across the political divide, supported the right of workers, not only to be treated fairly but to be treated equally. That has not always been the case.
Many thousands of workers were denied their proper rate of pay under direct rule. That was wrong. I hope that we, as an Assembly, have learned lessons from that. Many people think that there are still inequalities in workers’ rates of pay. The Minister needs to go the extra mile in ensuring that those affected by the issue are recompensed as a matter of urgency.
On 9 September 2009, the Finance and Personnel Committee was advised that a review of technical grades 1 and 2 had been completed over the summer and that NIPSA had been given access to the report. I hope that that marks an end to the issue.
In the most recent debate on equal pay for civil servants on 1 June 2009, I asked the then Finance Minister to explain what would happen to the back pay of those workers who have passed away before the issue has been resolved. What happens to their rights? Do their families have a right to claim on their behalf? Those questions have not been properly answered. It is not good enough to say that those moneys can be pursued legally. Those people were discriminated against, and their families should have the right to receive the compensation that their deceased loved ones were entitled to. That point has been raised with me by a number of people.
Many of us have been lobbied by our constituents on the issue. Those people are not faceless; they may be our constituents, but they are also our neighbours, friends and relatives. We understand their need to challenge the injustice that they have faced.
In June this year, my colleague from Upper Bann John O’Dowd said that the Assembly expected the matter to be dealt with fairly and quickly. The Minister needs to be proactive to ensure that this long running injustice is settled to everyone’s satisfaction. However, we must ensure that we do not go into another year without the matter being settled. That is the task that we must set ourselves.
It would be great if, 12 weeks before Christmas, those workers were given the news that the Assembly has responded to their justified claims and delivered on them. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the situation is brought quickly to an end, not just for the satisfaction of the workers but the Assembly as a whole.
Allan Bresland (DUP)
On one hand, it is difficult to argue with the sentiments of the motion. Like most MLAs across the parties and across the country, I have received many letters, e-mails and phone calls from irate civil servants who are wondering why they have not received the back pay that they were promised. It is very important that the matter is resolved as soon as possible. However, it is not as simple as the proposer of the motion makes out.
When the motion calling on the Finance Minister to ensure that the affected staff receive their back pay within three months was passed on 1 June, colleagues on these Benches warned of the dangers of setting a definite date because of the complex nature of the outstanding issues. Members opposite were more interested in scoring a cheap point against a DUP Minister and would not listen.
The issue is very complicated and resolving it will cost a considerable amount of money. Remember, it was the DUP who fought for and got extra money from the Treasury last year — £100 million in total — to address a range of pressures, including equal pay. Today, we face ever increasing financial pressures, and there are signs that the issues will cost more than £100 million to put right. Where will the money come from? Can we rely on the Treasury to come to our aid?
However it is done, we must ensure that the settlement of the equal pay claim is not only fair and meets all legal obligations but that it ensures that we never have to face this kind of situation again. I commend the efforts of the Finance Minister and his predecessors to resolve the long-running dispute and urge him to continue his negotiations with interested parties so that the matter can be resolved once and for all.
Over several months, I, and colleagues from the SDLP and other parties, have met civil servants who feel aggrieved at not being treated fairly with respect to parity of pay. It is unfair that people whose work has been assessed as being of equal value are paid different amounts. Given that this has been the case, staff, rightly and naturally, expect a settlement that includes arrears and future pay entitlements.
The equal pay dispute has been ongoing for too long, and it must reach a conclusion. It is unfair to allow civil servants, many of whom are not well paid, to carry the burden indefinitely. People rightly expected that the dispute would have been resolved a long time ago. They do not understand the delay, especially given the fact that, some time ago, the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s predecessor indicated that there would be a conclusion in the near future.
Around 5,000 individual cases are going through the legal tribunal process, and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance believes that it has a strong case for equal pay. However, a legal remedy on individual cases may not take account of the very complex financing issues that have to be faced when dealing with the collective pay claim, including back pay and pay going forward. The staff side is realistic about jobs and the economy. Does the Minister agree with the staff side that a collectively negotiated settlement would be much better for all concerned?
We understand that the Minister has inherited an historical dispute, and it is not the Minister’s fault — at this point in time, I hasten to add. [Laughter.] The Minister and his predecessors have expressed a desire to reach a settlement, but there has been no settlement thus far. The Minister has to understand the very deep frustration that is felt in Civil Service ranks. I hope that his contribution to the debate will confirm that he will be closely involved in the negotiations on an ongoing basis. Perhaps he will also give us some indication of how he hopes to manage that process. I hope that he will confirm that a clear process is now in place to resolve the dispute sooner rather than later and that officials have the flexibility and authority to negotiate effectively.
Will the Minister outline whether consideration has been given to the cost of settling the dispute with respect to back pay and pay going forward? Will he say whether budgets contain allowances to meet the demands? Given that the dispute involves pay claims relating to a considerable period of direct rule, will the Minister inform the House about the position of the chancellor of the exchequer is the government's chief financial..." class="glossary">Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury on their contributions to back pay? A lot of this took place during their watch.
Jim Shannon (DUP)
This is undoubtedly an issue that has been much publicised of late and on which I have received much correspondence from my constituents in Strangford. Other Members have probably said the same. There is a grave concern that the pay dispute has been put on the back burner. That is certainly not the case.
I have been in contact with the Department on numerous occasions by letter, and I have asked parliamentary questions, and I have every confidence that the matter will be resolved and that it is being worked on at the moment. However, as with most aspects of the Civil Service, it will take time — probably longer than most of us like to wait. That is a key issue, too.
The move will affect 9,000 civil servants in the lowest grades, mostly in secretarial and administrative posts, and workers who have retired from the Civil Service in the past six years could also be entitled to back pay, which could amount to as much as £20,000 each.
A hae heered sim fowk alloo at DFP hes becktrecked oan commitments gien afore bae pas’ Meenesters an’ i particular bae mae pairtie colleague Mr Peter Robinson. A’hm sarious gled tae saie at es motion isnae maakin thon oot an’ ‘deed hit ‘grees at the plen bes stairted an bes onie caa’in fer a tim’ line.
I have heard some people say that DFP has backtracked on commitments given by preceding Ministers, in particular my party colleague Mr Peter Robinson. I am glad to see that the motion is not suggesting that. Indeed, it agrees that the plan is in motion, and it is calling only for a timeline.
I have met women and men who have worked faithfully for the Civil Service for most of their working lives and who are waiting patiently for the outcome of the review. I must agree that the sooner they get their back pay the better. However, I am also aware that it is a complex issue that must be studied by the legal department with a view to ensure the fairest possible solution. That has to be good news.
Just last week, a lady who had worked in the Civil Service for some years came to my office. She misses the cut-off point for back pay by less than one year. Therefore, despite her years of underpaid service, she is not entitled to anything, as it stands; that does not seem fair. Because of such cases, I am glad that the legal department is working to see just how far back it can go and to what ends.
The issues involved are complex; the amounts of money involved are potentially very large and could have major implications for public services. Last year, in response to a question for oral answer, the Minister of Finance and Personnel estimated that a one-off payment of up to £100 million was possible. It is, therefore, vital that we get the settlement right, and we are very aware of how much it could cost.
It is not in the public interest to spend the sums that this matter demands without ensuring that it is a final solution and not one that will be challenged time and again. Therefore, it is essential that every “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed. The money that this party and the Minister has fought for to meet the challenge must be used for those who have a claim upon it.
Without doubt, the civil servants who have been underpaid have every right to their pay. I join other Members in asking that the Department carry out the review as soon as possible. However, I am sure that a forced deadline will bring the necessary and expected results.
I have every confidence that my colleague Sammy Wilson and the officials in his Department will bring the matter to an end as soon as possible. There is no doubt in my mind that the issue is being investigated as we debate it and that an end to the issue is on the horizon. I stand with those of my constituents who have contacted me in urging a speedy ending but one that is comprehensive, with every aspect looked at and every group catered for.
I support the civil servants who are entitled to back pay; I support the vital work that they do every day and their right to a fair wage. With that statement of support I add a plea: be patient and be assured that we will not stop dealing with this matter until we reach the correct method of ensuring that everyone receives what they are entitled to.
The DUP gave an assurance and we will keep our word to do what those in government before were perhaps afraid to do: put right that which is wrong and fight for equality in these matters. I support our civil servants and our Minister in his quest to deliver what is requested in the motion.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I thank everyone who took part in the debate and for the measured way, by and large — although I might refer to a few individuals — in which the debate took place.
This is an important issue. I am sure that Members’ speeches reflected the sort of postbag that I, too, as a Member get from people who want to see the issue resolved.
I also want the issue to be resolved, because of the reasons that Members have given today, including the fact that it affects many people who are not well paid. It has to be resolved anyhow, because, on reaching agreement, we are obliged to make payments, and the longer the process, the larger the bill will be. Therefore, Finance Ministers, the Department of Finance and trade unions have no reason to drag their feet.
However, certain realities have to be faced. I noted what Mr O’Loan said about the need to show respect to the Assembly and to the motions that it agrees. With due respect, the Assembly needs to show some respect for itself. There is no point in the Assembly passing motions that bear no resemblance to the complexity of the issues that my Department is trying to address. On 1 June, the Assembly set a deadline that the issue must be resolved within three months, but that did not happen, and it was never going to happen. Today, the Assembly can pass a motion saying that it has to be done in another three months, but the issue is complex.
The one assurance that I can give is that my Department has sought to move forward as fast as possible. Mr O’Loan did not understand why the review of the two grades took so long, but it was a complex process: 130 posts had to be evaluated, and resources were drawn in from other Departments. For a review of that scale, it was carried out much more quickly than one would normally expect because those additional resources were thrown at it.
Several Members, quite rightly, asked what the timescale is now and whether the issue would be settled and money given out before Christmas. I do not know, because there are a number of imponderables. NIPSA is now looking at the review to see whether it agrees with the findings. My officials and I have now made a proposal to the trade unions. Having looked at the proposal, their response was that they wish to discuss certain issues. My Department is not totally in control of that process of negotiation. It will take time, but I cannot specify how long to the Assembly today.
NIPSA may agree to the proposal tomorrow morning but, even were it do so, that would not be the end of the story, because it would have to be put to NIPSA members for a vote. Even after that, my officials would have to speak to each individual, because everyone will be affected differently. However, to avoid delay, those stages of the process will not run concurrently. My Department is already taking action so that, if and when agreement is reached, the arrangements will be in place for meeting each of those individuals. Even should we get to that point, there are some people who have taken their cases to tribunal, and that is in their hands.
I am not making excuses; I am simply trying to explain to Members that those realities have to be faced. My only responsibility is to instruct my officials to make a proposal, and that has been done. I have told them to, if possible, do things in parallel, and that is being done. Mr Maginness asked what role I will take in the process. I have made it clear that, if it helps to get my message across and reach a settlement, I am happy to talk to the unions. I want to get this sorted, but I am not going to make promises on the basis that it would be nice to be able to give the timescale that Members demand. There is no point in my committing to a potentially impossible timescale over which I have no control.
A couple of Members referred to a comment that I made at a Committee meeting. I said that there are two issues: fairness and the impact on the public service.
Some Members have decided to interpret that as blackmail. It is not blackmail: it is simply stating the situation. There will be an impact, depending on what happens. I will give an example: there are 1,600 jobs in the Department for Social Development and the Department of the Environment that are outsourced from the Department for Work and Pensions and the vehicle licensing department in Swansea. If the settlement, when it is eventually reached, impacts on the wages costs in those outsourced areas, the DWP and the vehicle licensing department could decide to no longer bring that work to Northern Ireland because costs might be higher than they originally accepted. I am simply stating that cost implications of a settlement will impact on the public service.
I understand what the Minister is saying, but I do not understand how it becomes a factor in the negotiations. The process has to be based on comparisons: people must get what they are entitled to.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
If it were the case that a fixed sum of money was involved, there would be nothing to negotiate about. However, the word “negotiation” implies that there is an area that is open for negotiation because there are uncertainties and matters about which judgments have to be made. That is the point that I am making. One of those things —
I thank the Minister for giving way again. It is terribly important to clarify that the negotiations are about comparability. We are describing this issue as a claim for equal pay so, surely, all the discussions are essentially about the equal pay issue; equal pay for, allegedly and arguably, equal work. That is the only point at issue; not that the implications for the Finance Minister, if he concedes the point on equality, will be so horrendous that he does not want to go there. That is not part of the negotiations at all.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
The Member is being a bit naïve because, in negotiations, there are a wide range of issues that have to be looked at. When I met the Committee, I made it quite clear that one of those issues was the impact that the settlement would have on the public service. That is something that negotiators have to take into account. As the Member said, it may well be the case that they will simply say that all those issues do not count. That is fine, and that will be their negotiating position. However, in my view, it has to be spelt out that there will be consequences of such a position.
David McNarry (UUP)
When that issue was raised by officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel, it is suffice to say that Committee members were quite horrified at such thinking. Is the Minister saying that in the process of negotiations, it will be transmitted by his negotiators that, in giving and making headway for the settlement, the other side must take or share the responsibility for the consequences that there may be in jobs?
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I already did that when I spoke to the Committee: I spelt out the position. How people decide to react is entirely for them. I was up front about the matter when I spoke to the Committee, and I welcome the opportunity in the Assembly to indicate the position that I took when I gave that briefing.
That brings me to the issue of cost, which was the central point, and the only relevant part, of Mr McNarry’s speech. Most of it was self-justification that was totally unsubstantiated. He claimed that he could count, that he was not economically illiterate and that he was right about there being a black hole. There were more unsubstantiated statements of that kind.
I can understand that he will always want to come back, but he did make one relevant point in a speech that went on for three or four minutes, which was about how the cost of the settlement would be met.
I accept that most Members did not ask about the exact cost. Had they done so and pressed me, I would have given the same answer as I gave the Committee: I do not know what the exact cost will be, because we are still in negotiations and it would be daft of me even to suggest what we believe the global figure might be. That would not be good for negotiations.
At the end of the day, however, the settlement must be funded. There are three options open to us. First, we already have a facility to borrow from the Treasury. That borrowing was not attached specifically to the Civil Service equal pay settlement, but it is money that is available.
Secondly, once the final figure is known, and since part of the pay claim is a legacy issue, I can and am prepared to go to the Treasury. In response to questions from some Members, I have not had any contact with the Treasury. There has been no cause to make contact, because I do not know what the settlement figure is likely to be.
Thirdly, the Executive can consider how resources might be allocated to pay for the settlement. The one thing that I make clear is that, once a settlement has been concluded, we will have an obligation to find the money from some source.
The equal pay claim is a legacy issue. What are the tax implications for recipients if they receive relatively large sums of money that could distort the level of tax that they normally pay? They would be penalised. If they were receiving the money over, say, 10 years, they would not be paying so much tax. That is an issue.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
That is an issue, and, as far as I am aware, payments would be taxable. That may be a matter for negotiations. There are other ways of paying tax that might help to avoid the issues raised by the Member. I think that those issues will form part of the talks with the trade unions.
Anna Lo asked whether people would lose out the longer it takes to reach a settlement. They will not. The longer it goes on, the greater the bill becomes, but the claim stands from the time that it was made. Therefore, negotiations are not a way by which to get people to drop off the list. The Member may have a cynical view of the Minister of Finance, but, in this case, her cynicism is not well founded.
Jennifer McCann said that female staff were being denied promotion opportunities. There is no evidence of that; indeed, all the evidence is that male staff are under-represented at administrative assistant and administrative officer levels. Fra McCann asked about the standing of applicants who have died. Claims by staff who left the Civil Service but who claimed within six months have legal standing; former staff who have not claimed have lost out. Those are the issues that I imagine the trades unions will talk about during the negotiations.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I want to see the equal pay issue resolved. I have sought to do so, and I know that my officials are working hard to get it resolved. However, there is a job of work to be done that is not totally in my Department’s control. We seek to sort it out as quickly as possible, making it at least one issue that I can get off the list of things that I must do as Finance Minister.
I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome that I have not heard any Member say that they will not support the motion, and I hope that the House will not divide on it.
I am sure that most Members know that today is payday and that many people had been looking forward to having extra money and back pay in their pay packets, but that is not the case. Even after this debate, we still do not have a time when they might expect to have that pay, and that is very disappointing. Although the Minister attempted to address some of the questions that were raised by some Members, we have not yet heard whether he will commit to putting in a bid for some of the money that the British Treasury offered to lend to the Northern Ireland Executive for a range of purposes.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I thought that I had made it clear that when we reach a settlement with the trade unions that is agreed with the workers, we will be legally obliged to fund that settlement. I offered a range of ways in which that might be done, including taking the money from existing budgets, going and talking to the Treasury or using the facility that is available at present.
David McNarry (UUP)
When Mr Bresland from the DUP was reading the speech that was written for him — certainly, there is no reason why the DUP would not prepare it for him — he congratulated the DUP’s Finance Minister for “securing” the £100 million. How does the Member feel that that DUP opinion sits with the one that she has just heard from the Minister about the distribution of the offer?
There is a discrepancy, and I was going to come to that. The £25 million of ongoing costs for future payments have not been addressed. There seems to be some sort of communication breakdown in the DUP because although the Minister, in his new portfolio, said that he has not approached the Treasury, I understand that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister had this issue on the agenda when they met the British Prime Minister. Somebody is not telling things to somebody else.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I think that I made it clear that I have not had talks with the Treasury about this matter because we do not know what the sum will be. However, the £100 million facility still stands — Mr McNarry must have difficulty hearing — and it could be used for this matter. Of course, if they so choose, the Executive might decide to finance it in some other way.
Therein lies the concerns of the people who are owed money. We have not heard whether, as Mr Bresland indicated, there is a clear commitment to use the £100 million for the equal pay claim or whether that will be needed for other purposes, particularly given that the Minister has at last come round to the SDLP’s and Ulster Unionist Party’s way of thinking, which is that there is a black hole in the Budget.
We have heard this afternoon that, regardless of the principle of equal pay, the Minister has introduced to the negotiations the potential impact of the claim on contracts that are provided through the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere. The implication is, therefore, that if we are forced to pay the equal pay claim, we might lose 1,200 jobs. That is the blackmail to which Members referred and that the Minister interpreted when he addressed the Committee.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I answered in response to a question about what I meant by the impact on the public service. I would be being less than honest if I were not to say that we have contractual arrangements with other Departments in GB and that the equal pay settlement may well impact on the cost of running those contracts. All I was doing was explaining the connection. That is not blackmail; it is just explaining the connection.
David McNarry (UUP)
I am grateful to the Member for giving way, because things are getting very interesting. Does the Member agree that we could not fault anyone who is waiting on the outcome of the settlement for thinking that his or her job has become part of the negotiating exercise? Is that really what has happened with the so-called settlement that is taking so long?
Mr McNarry stated some of my concerns well. Regardless of how well intentioned the Minister is in being realistic about the settlement, his words might be interpreted in the way that I described. Equal pay is exactly that: it is a principle whereby people are entitled to their pay, regardless of whether contracts will be won or lost. Surely the British Government cannot say that they will put resources, work and contracts into Northern Ireland only because our workers are cheaper and of less value than their own. Surely some commitment should be made, and surely that should be part of the Minister’s negotiations with the British Treasury on the other contracts. There should be no adverse impact as a result of the settlement.
Sammy Wilson (DUP)
I thank the Member for giving way; she has been generous in that respect.
I am not clear where the Member is coming from. I was asked a question, and I answered it. I am now being criticised for answering it. Is the Member saying that she would rather that I had kept Members in the dark and not spelled out the implications? There might be no implications, but there could be. I thought that the whole idea of having a debate in the Assembly and of a Minister responding to it is to ensure utter transparency. It seems that when a Minister is transparent and gives an answer, he is criticised for being too honest. I do not think that that is a good way to proceed.
That was not my intent, but I am concerned about how the matter may be interpreted elsewhere. I was honest in what I said. Surely civil servants need to know that the Minister is fighting and that he is fighting hard for them.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
This is a point that I raised earlier. Will the Member tell us what the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Ministers did to settle this dispute when they had the levers of power?
I can give Mr McCann a history lesson if he wishes. As the deputy First Minister often says, we are moving forward, but if Mr McCann wants to talk about Stormontgate and about how unstable the previous political institutions became because of the actions of his party and the DUP, I am happy to do so. However, the motion is about securing the Civil Service claim for back pay.
I was interested to read the Hansard report of Mr Hamilton’s contribution during the previous debate on the matter. The DUP tabled an amendment, which called on the civil servants who were affected to receive their back pay within three months or as soon as possible. That amendment was withdrawn well into the debate. During that debate, Mr Hamilton spoke of how the measure should not be used for political point scoring. However, he used the majority of his contribution, as Mr McCann is now doing, for that very purpose. That is interesting.
I am sorry, I cannot give way; I am almost out of time.
One of the issues that I wanted to raise — if I could find it in my notes — is the importance of taxation. My colleague Alban Maginness raised that matter. The tax on the additional money that is to be paid may be a matter for the negotiations, but I am sure that the burden on those civil servants who are owed back pay could be reduced. I am sure that a commitment to discuss that point would be welcomed widely. Indeed, the Minister took that point on board during his summing up. As some Members said, some individual civil servants are owed as much as £20,000. That is not a small sum by any stretch of the imagination, and it would have a severe impact on their taxation.
Mr Weir said that this is not a sectarian issue, and I do not think that Members want to portray it as such. However, it is a gender issue, as Ms McCann stated.
I welcome Members’ contribution to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern that the Civil Service equal pay claim remains unresolved despite the Assembly resolution of 1 June 2009 calling on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to ensure that the staff affected receive their back pay within three months; welcomes the assurance by the Minister that the financial implications of a resolution to this matter will have to be faced in a manner compatible with the Department’s legal obligations; and calls on the Minister to state an early date by which a comprehensive settlement offer will be made to the trade union representing the staff concerned.