David
Cairns: It would obviously depend on when the Assembly was
reconvened; the end point is24 November, but it could happen
much sooner. I do not have before me a date when we would hope to lay
that order, but I imagine that it will be in October and thus prior to
the final deadline, but I shall check. In any event, all those issues
will be handed back to the Assembly in the event that it will be
reconvened and
fully functioning in the autumn, as we hope it will be. I have just
received inspiration that tells me that we are seeking to lay that
order on 9 October.
Dr.
McCrea: Divine inspiration.
David
Cairns: Divine inspiration
indeed.
As the Committee will have
gathered, although the order before us is relatively uncontroversial
and technical, it opens a broader discussion on issues that are of
great concern to the public in Northern Ireland. I undertake to respond
to any questions now and if I cannot do so I will write to hon.
Members. 4.45
pm Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I join the Minister
in welcoming you to the Committee,Mr. Cummings. I also welcome
the Minister to his new position. I assure him that he will enjoy many
of these statutory instruments unless we achieve the objective of
getting the Assembly up and running. I hope that one way or another he
enjoys his time in Northern
Ireland.
Sir
Patrick Cormack: We do not hope that, do we? We so
disapprove of this way of legislating on Northern Ireland that we will
hold the Government to their commitment to bring in a better form of
legislating if the deadline is not
met.
Mr.
Robertson: My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select
Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs makes a very good point indeed,
which I was about to come to in a slightly different form.
I have said many times, as have
Liberal Democrat Members, that it is unfortunate that this Committee
has to consider an order that is of such importance to the people of
Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is a shame that we consider any matter,
even something relatively trivial, because with the best will in the
world, even the number of times my hon. Friends and I and others travel
to Northern Ireland and the interest that we take cannot give us the
knowledge that we need in order to pass important legislation. I regret
that this matter is not being left to the Assembly, especially when
such efforts are being made to get it up and
running. The Minister
said that it is necessary to bring in water charges in order to allow
expenditure on other areas of life in Northern Ireland, but I think it
is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide. A figure of
£300 million has been mentioned; if they decide that it should
not be spent in a different way, that is up to them. I regret that we
are having this discussion
today. My
hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury(Mr. Lidington) has asked
the Government in the past to put a moratorium on the more serious
legislation on important issues such as rates, water rates, education
and the local government review. If we did get the Assembly up and
running by November or even before, there would not be a lot for it to
consider, although I hesitate to say that. The great irony is that much
very important legislation will have been passed by that
time. I go further: I
do not want to state the Democratic Unionist party’s case, but I
wonder whether it would be of some encouragement to that party to think
that it might have a great effect on very important legislation
in the Province if the Government held back on this kind of legislation.
I do not speak for that party, but it may induce it to take the steps
that we hope one day it will be able to take. I regret that we are
discussing this issue
today. The Minister
will be aware if he has looked at the previous debate on the rates in
general that we have some concern about what is being done. The first
concern is the extra cost to people in Northern Ireland. We are well
aware that the level of disposable income in Northern Ireland is
somewhat less than it is in the United Kingdom as a whole. Today, I
looked at the figures for the number of children who live in relative
poverty in Northern Ireland, which are very high. We are not actually
looking at a similar situation; we are not comparing like with like
when we consider Northern Ireland. I am very concerned indeed about the
cost of what is about to happen in respect of rates and water rates to
the people in Northern
Ireland. I am also
concerned about some of the detail of the proposal and I hope that you
will allow me to mention it very briefly, Mr. Cummings. I accept that
it is not what we are discussing today, which is giving the right to
the Government to access certain information which, as far as I know,
would involve discrete values of houses in Northern Ireland. At the
last statutory instrument, when we discussed the rating system, I
expressed my concern about how each individual house would have a value
attached to it for the purpose of rating. I ask the Minister: will that
value also be used for water rates? If it is, it seems unfair to take
into account, for example, what type of windows the house has. I do not
see the connection between a house’s windows, for
example, “Single-glazed
with Wooden frames”
or
“Single-glazed with PVC
frames”— this
information is all on the document that will be used for the rating
valuation—and the level of water rates that that household will
pay. I want the Minister to consider that when he
responds. There are
many other items in the order that concern me but I will not test your
patience, Mr. Cummings, by discussing them today. We will return to
them. I note that the order will be laid on 9 October. I understand
that the Committee will convene some days after that to consider it. I
remind the Minister that 9 October is the day Parliament resumes after
the summer recess. I accept that the document is out now, but it would
be useful to have a little time when we return to get up and running
again, and assess the situation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and
the issue of rates and water rates before we consider the order in
Committee. That said, I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for
South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the Chairman of the Select
Committee, said. If the Assembly is up and running by then, what will
happen? Will we get the main order or will the Assembly take over that
issue? I just say on
the consultation that “consultation” is a word that is
used very often these days. We have consultations on police forces and
health services and it seems to me that, while I am sure this will not
be the case in Northern Ireland, often the consultations are nothing
but a smokescreen. Everyone opposes the mergers of police forces and
the health service cuts, yet
they seem to go through anyway. The Minister said on the record that he
will take careful note of all the representations made to him. At this
point, it is difficult to see how, if he does that, he can progress
with the order because, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr.
McCrea) pointed out, there is universal opposition to the introduction
of public rates and certainly of water rates. I am not sure how the
Minister will take careful note of that opposition and yet proceed with
the order, but that tends to be the nature of consultation. I hope that
it will not be the case, especially as neither he nor I have any
legitimacy in Northern Ireland so it is even more important to take
note of what people say there than it is in ordinary consultations in
the rest of the United
Kingdom. Sir
Patrick Cormack: Anyone can take notes. I am sure that the
Minister is exceptionally diligent at so doing. What we want is a
positive response to local feelings.
Mr.
Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I
hope—it might be a vain hope—that we get that response.
Having expressed those concerns, I look forward to hearing what other
hon. Members have to say and, especially, to the Minister’s
response.
4.54
pm Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cummings, and welcome the Minister to
Northern Ireland business. Having expanded his horizons, he now covers
Scotland and Northern
Ireland. To echo the
hon. Member for Tewkesbury, the order is no way to pass legislation. We
are on a Committee the vast majority of whose members have not been
elected from Northern Ireland and do not have the intimate experience
of life there that Members from Northern Ireland
have. Also,
we have before us an order that cannot be amended, and although both
parts of it relate to water and sewerage, they cover two completely
separate aspects—one is information sharing, the other
abstraction of water. What do we do if we are happy with one aspect but
not with the other? We must either accept or reject the order as a
package. That is no way to consider
legislation. I stress
that I am opposed to the Government’s plans to charge for water
and sewerage based on the capital value of people’s homes, as
that is a very unfair system. The people who will suffer most are
those—mainly pensioners—who own their homes, but have
only a small income, because they will struggle to pay their water
bills. I accept that the order does not, in itself, introduce water
charges, but it is an essential part of paving the way for their
introduction. I note
that under the order, people in receipt of housing benefit will be
identified and will receive automatic assistance with their water and
sewerage bills, but what will happen to owner-occupiers on low incomes?
Will they be entitled to help with their water bills? How will they be
identified? The
pension credit is a perfect example of a benefit that fails many
people, because it relies on people applying for it and many are
unaware that they have to submit a claim. The order might provide
automatic assistance to people on housing benefit, but there are
others on low incomes who are not in receipt of housing benefit. I hope
the Minister explains how they will be identified and helped. I agree that the Government are
right to adopt measures to help to identify people who will be eligible
for assistance, but I have concerns that the measures in the order will
not identify everyone. Although I am opposed to the introduction of
water charges based on the capital value of people’s homes, I
accept that part of the order will be beneficial. Before I can support
it, therefore, I need assurances from the Minister that it will enable
everyone on a low income to be
helped. I look forward
to hearing the views of other Committee members, especially those from
Northern Ireland, and to the Minister’s winding-up speech and
responses to my
points. 4.57
pm
Lady
Hermon: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. It is kind of you to call
me so early in proceedings. It is a delight to sit under your
chairmanship, and I believe that this is the first time that I have had
the opportunity to do
so. I sincerely
welcome the Minister to his post in the Northern Ireland Office. He
will know that I was particularly pleased with his appointment, and
delighted that one of his first commitments was at the Balmoral show in
Belfast—the famous agricultural show that has attracted hundreds
of thousands of visitors over the
years. The order is
important legislation. As other hon. Members have rightly said, it is a
great shame—indeed, a disgrace—that 1.7 million of the
people who live in the United Kingdom are legislated for by delegated
legislation. The great shame is that we can talk this afternoon until
we are blue in the face, and I hope that some Labour Members will
contribute—
Sir
Patrick Cormack: Not until they are blue in the face, I
trust.
Lady
Hermon: I hope that Labour Members will contribute because
some of them are particularly knowledgeable on environmental matters
and we would welcome their views on the order.
I do not propose to talk until
I am blue in the face, but I can feel myself getting rather irritated
that, once again, if there is anything wrong in this
legislation—I contend that aspects of it are wrong—and if
it goes through, which it probably will unless we in the Opposition can
muster enough votes to say no to it, we in Northern Ireland will be
lumbered with it until the Executive are up and running again. I hope
that all Members will join me in the commitment to see an
Executive—in fact, the Assembly of 108 Members—back at
Stormont. Let me
begin with the problems, as I see them, in the order. I am sure that
the list of problems that I have identified is not exhaustive. The
Minister has welcomed the order, as we would expect any Minister to do,
even if he disagreed with it, but at the end of our debate he may find
that he, too, is unhappy with aspects of
it. Let us look at the
order in two parts. The first is to do with a large exchange of
information between the
Department of Finance and Personnel, the Northern Ireland Housing
Executive and the Departmentfor Regional Development, which,
as I understand article 3(2), is compulsory
information-swapping. The
Minister mentioned a small number of responses. I should like to think
that, among the small number of responses, there might have been a
reply from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is, of
course, a statutory human rights commission set up under the Belfast
agreement. Even if the Belfast agreement were at an end, which it most
certainly is not, and I am glad that that will not be the case, the
statutory body of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would
continue. I should like to know its views—whether it made a
submission on the issue of privacy—and whether it was silent on
or contributed to the consultation
process. The
Minister indicated that the information will be swapped automatically.
It is a compulsory exchange of information. About 200,000 people will
be identified, because the information on their housing benefit will be
swapped between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the
Department for Regional
Development. Surely
the Minister will know, as other hon. Members do, that there is high
concern about the level of benefit fraud—not just in Northern
Ireland, but across the United Kingdom. Will he enlighten us on the
number of people who might fraudulently be claiming housing
benefit? It might help
hon. Members if I read from a parliamentary reply given to the hon.
Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) last year, the figures in which
date to July 2005, which indicated that 176,740 people were claiming
housing benefit. It was asked what percentage might fraudulently be
claiming housing benefit, when error was added in, and, on average,
between 2 and 4 per cent. of claimants were claiming housing benefit
either fraudulently or through
error. Will the
Minister tell the Committee how the main water order will deal with the
problem of fraudulent claims? If there are fraudulent claims for
housing benefit, it follows logically from the order that there will
also be fraudulent claims for a reduced water and sewerage charge. Am I
correct? He is obviously not going to intervene, but he may answer in
his winding-up
speech. The other
important issue in the Northern Ireland context is anonymous
registration. The Minister will know that there are serious, legitimate
concerns, particularly from prison officers, police officers and other
members of the security forces, and, sadly, their widows, and in some
cases their partners, who have been left in a serious position in that
they have inherited a house that they wish to maintain as the family
home. Those people
are deeply concerned about the exchange of their details and
information, yet under the order information is to be exchanged
automatically and compulsorily between the Northern Ireland Housing
Executive and the Department for Regional Development. What provision
has been put in place, who will pay and what will the cost be for the
protection and anonymity given to persons who, rightly and legitimately,
are concerned about that information going
further? The Minister
rightly, but not in sufficient detail—if I might just put in a
tiny point of criticism—skated over criminal convictions for the
unlawful disclosure of information. Article 4 deals with the
unauthorised disclosure of information relating to a particular person.
Paragraph (3)
states: “It is
not an offence under this Article to disclose information which has
previously been disclosed to the public with lawful
authority.” The meaning
of that phrase is usefully but not adequately defined in article
4(6): “For the
purposes of this Article a disclosure of information is to be regarded
as made with lawful authority if, and only if, it is
made— “(a)
in accordance with his official duty by a civil
servant”— I assume
that also applies to her official duty,
too— “(b)
by any other person, in accordance with an authorisation
given by the
Department; (c)
in accordance with any statutory provision or order of a
court; (d) for the
purposes of any criminal proceedings;
or (e) with
the consent of the person to whom the information
relates.” For example, a
police or prison officer might not wish their details to be
disclosed. The hon.
Member for South Staffordshire, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee, will be able to endorse the Committee’s finding that
many people across Northern Ireland are terribly intimidated about
coming forward as witnesses against those who commit extortion and
intimidation in all shapes and forms, such as a little whisper of,
“I know where you work,” or, “I know where your
children go to school.” Those people, too, will not wish their
details to be
disclosed. Let us
imagine that one such individual claims housing benefit and says to the
Department or the relevant official that their identity can be
disclosed, giving that particular civil servant lawful authority. In
the next room, however, another civil servant working at his e-mail,
who has no lawful authority, discloses it. It has gone out with
authorisation from one civil servant and is in the public domain, so
that civil servant has not committed a criminal offence under the
order. However, the other person who has disclosed
information—this is not a criticism of civil servants; I merely
need clarification of the point—does not have lawful authority
and has clearly committed a criminal
offence. Will the
Minister clarify whether the fact that that information has gone into
the public domain means that everyone is covered for ever and a day? If
the details are released in connection with a court case, will that
carry through for three or four years? How long will it last?
I also want clarification on
the drafting in relation to someone who might have disclosed vital
information without lawful authority. In many cases, until we see the
end of criminal activity by paramilitaries, both loyalist and
republican, certain information might well
be vital to the security and well-being of a person in Northern Ireland.
Many people understandably live in fear of
identification. Article
4(5) states: “A
person who is guilty of an offence under this Article shall be
liable— (a) on
summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory
maximum; (b) on
conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years or to a fine or to
both.” I am not a
criminal lawyer, but having had the great benefit of being a member of
so many Standing Committees on delegated legislation, I can say that
that is extraordinary drafting on a criminal
offence. Normally—there
might be a reason that this is not in the order, but I want the
Minister to articulate it—that would read “on summary
conviction, to a fine or to imprisonment.” If that is at the
magistrates court, it will be a maximum of six months in prison. There
is no alternative to a fine in this order. If the offence is serious,
therefore, cases will be driven into the Crown court to obtain a term
of imprisonment, which will mean more cost. I cannot believe that that
was the Government’s intention, so will the Minister kindly
enlighten us? I shall
move on to the second part of this interesting order. I do not often do
this, but for once, I absolutely and genuinely pay tribute to the
officials who drafted the explanatory memorandum. I should declare an
interest, however, because in a previous incarnation, which seems an
awfully long time ago, I taught in the law faculty at Queen’s,
and my favourite subject was European Community law. I am probably the
only Unionist politician with life membership of the European movement,
although the hon. Member for South Antrim may correct
me. European Community
law is a complicated, but fascinating area of law, and I should like
the Minister to say whether the order has been driven, as I suspect it
has, not by the Government’s great wish to sustain the green
fields of Northern Ireland, but, as with most of these regulations and
orders, by the fear of infraction proceedings in the European Court of
Justice. Paragraph 31
of the very helpful explanatory memorandum refers to recent infraction
proceedings before the ECJ,
which “found
against the UK for incorrect transposition of this Directive. Lack of
controls on water abstraction and impoundment in Northern Ireland is an
element in this
judgement.” Perhaps the
Minister can enlighten members of the Committee as to which part of the
judgment indicates that there must be a licensing system in Northern
Ireland, and in Northern Ireland alone.
I say that because paragraph 22
of the wonderful explanatory memorandum
says: “The
Habitats Directive...does not explicitly require Member States to
introduce a licensing regime for water abstraction, but it does require
that any plan or project, either alone or in combination with other
projects, that might have a significant impact on a protected site must
be subject to appropriate assessment before it receives consent to
proceed.” The directive
is not, therefore, the reason for the introduction of the licensing
system in Northern Ireland, but it does require an appropriate
assessment to be made.
Will the Minister explain
whether we are shifting the cost—if there is one, and I assume
that there is—to those who apply for licences? Will they bear
the cost under the habitats directive as a result of implementing a
licence system? If there had been an alternative appropriate
assessment, the cost might have been borne by the
DOE. Finally—at
least until I think of something else—I should like to ask the
Minister about the assertion in paragraph 26 of the explanatory
memorandum, which
states: “The
Environment and Heritage Service...of
DOE”— it does
sterling work under huge pressure, and I pay tribute to those who work
for it— “will have
the responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of this new
legislation” on the
licensing system for the abstraction and impounding of
water. Given that,
will the Minister enlighten us as to what will happen if—I say
only “if”, and it is a cautious
“if”—the review of public administration goes
ahead? Of course, I hope that the Executive and the Assembly will be up
and running well before 24 November and that the review of public
administration does not go ahead in its current form. In the worst-case
scenario, if it goes ahead, what will happen to the EHS and the
licensing enforcement
regime? I have other
points that I could make, but I shall rest my case and listen carefully
to the Minister’s
response. 5.15
pm
| 
