The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Martin
Caton
Bailey,
Mr. Adrian
(West Bromwich, West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Cairns,
David
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland)
Devine,
Mr. Jim
(Livingston)
(Lab)
Durkan,
Mark
(Foyle)
(SDLP)
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
Hermon,
Lady
(North Down)
(UUP)
Khan,
Mr. Sadiq
(Tooting)
(Lab)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
McCrea,
Dr. William
(South Antrim)
(DUP)
McKechin,
Ann
(Glasgow, North)
(Lab)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
Mallaber,
Judy
(Amber Valley)
(Lab)
Mates,
Mr. Michael
(East Hampshire)
(Con)
Norris,
Dan
(Wansdyke)
(Lab)
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
Robertson,
Mr. Laurence
(Tewkesbury)
(Con)
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
Taylor,
Mr. Ian
(Esher and Walton)
(Con)
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
Wright,
David
(Telford)
(Lab)
Jenny
McCullough, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock) (Lab)
Fifth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 28
November
2006
[Mr.
Martin Caton in the
Chair]
Draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David
Cairns): I beg to move,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland)
Order 2006.
A draft of the order
was laid before the House on 9 November. May I begin by
sayingit is customary, but
heartfeltwhat a pleasure it is to serve under your
chairmanship today, Mr.
Caton?
The draft order
sets out the blueprint for an ambitious programme of investment and
reform of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland. It
establishes the framework within which sustained investment will take
place to improve the quality of our drinking water, better protect the
environment and radically enhance the delivery of water and sewerage
services to consumers. The draft order addresses those objectives
principally by providing for a company to be known as Northern Ireland
Water Ltd, wholly owned by Government and operating on a commercial
basis, to deliver water and sewerage services. Secondly, it sets out
the duties and powers of the company to deliver water and sewerage
services. Thirdly, it establishes a robust and up-to-date regulatory
regime for the water utility by extending the remit of the current
energy regulator to include water matters.
Fourthly, it places duties on
the company and the regulator to address consumer interests while also
extending the role of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland
to include water and sewerage matters. Fifthly, it establishes a
framework for charging that will ensure that charges will be fair and
affordable with protection for the most vulnerable and low income
households in the form of an affordability tariff. Finally, it updates
the environmental regulatory regime within which water and sewerage
services will be delivered. The policies underpinning this draft order
have been subject to extensive impact assessment and public
consultation over the last three and a half years. The draft
legislation was issued for consultation over 12 weeks from June to
August this year.
The
introduction of new charges is never popular, yet I am sure that all of
us agree that investment in water and sewerage services, measures to
protect the environment, improved accountability through our robust
regulatory framework, new rights for consumers, protection for those on
low incomes and the efficient delivery of essential services are vital
aims. Many of the respondents to the consultation recognised that and
welcomed the measures that the draft order
introduces.
Lady
Hermon (North Down) (UUP): I too am delighted to sit under
your chairmanship, Mr. Caton, and I am very pleased that the
Minister gave way.
As
the Ministers Department has just been taken to court and the
Consumer Council has obtained a declaration, will the Minister kindly
explain how it ended up in court and how the Consumer Council was so
successful?
David
Cairns: In my relatively brief time in Northern Ireland, I
have found that one can end up in court very quickly. A number of
judicial reviews are ongoing against me in various departmental guises
on planning policy statements and other issues. It is not that
difficult to end up in court in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady drew
attention to the declaration. I know that hon. Members have been sent a
copy of it. It is self-explanatory. It is issued to us as a Committee
to determine as we see fit the appropriate action to take in relation
to the processing of the draft order under the affirmative procedure,
which is the procedure we are using to
day.
Andrew
Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): Will the Minister give
way?
David
Cairns: I will in a second. I am just responding to the
substance of the hon. Ladys claim. The first action that was
being asked of the judge when the judicial review was first heard was
that the proceedings be stopped. The judge rejected that. Then 16
counts were brought, most of them concerning the statutory consultation
period and the way in which the Government conform to Cabinet Office
guidelines on statutory consultation periods: 15 of the 16 counts were
dismissed. One of them, which I have said I take seriously, concerned
the actions of the Department after the formal consultation period
ended in a window of opportunity of about two weeks between the end of
the consultation period and the issuing of further statements on this
matter. The judge said that, having gone through the statutory
consultation correctly and properly, there was a further window of
opportunity where I could have returned to the Consumer Council, but
not to any of the other 46 respondents, such as the North Down council,
or the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party or the
Social Democratic and Labour party who also submitted responses. At
that stage, the only consultee to which I could have gone back for a
further engagement was the Consumer Council. I accept that that was
possible, and take the judges point that I had that
opportunity. However, I did not consider it necessary. He has ruled
that it was a possibility. I accept that, but I do not accept, having
seen some of the reporting, that it was critical in the sense of a
matter of life or death. If it had been, the judge could have ordered
us not to proceed, which he did not do. The judge issued a balanced and
sensible conclusion, which, on that one element, said that there was a
further opportunity at the end of the formal consultation period for
engagement with one of the respondents, and that we could have taken
it. That is fair enough.
That, however, does not
disguise the fact that we have consulted extensively with the Consumer
Council. I appreciate that, and I welcome the support and
engagement of the Consumer Council over a long time. In fact, this
legislation was changed thanks to that engagement. I do not want the
more lurid claims that have been made in the past few days to distort
what has been a good working relationship between the Government and
the Consumer Council. However, I need to set the record straight on
some issues, and I am grateful to have the
opportunity.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and
I am exercising my right under the Standing Orders, as somebody
whofor whatever reasonhas not been appointed by the
Whips to this Committee but who wants to speak. The Minister says that
members of the Committee have been sent the declaration of the High
Court judge. I heard about it only 15 minutes ago from the hon. Member
for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I went to the Vote Office yesterday to get the
documentation, the explanatory notes and the order, and I went twice
today. In the past 15 minutes, I have been again. I looked the staff
there straight in the eye and said, Are there any other
documents? There were none. So the Vote Office is not issuing
the declaration.
You might
say, Mr. Caton, that the members of the Committee have it.
With respect, I remind the Minister that the decision of this Committee
is a recommendation to the House. Unfortunately, night after night we
rubber stamp measures listed on the Order Paper as without
debate. However, every Member of the House, all 640-odd of us,
is entitled, to go to the Vote Office to get this declaration and to be
aware of it. If you went down to the Vote Office now, Mr.
Caton, you would not get it. That is not just highly unsatisfactory, it
is irregular, and, to put it candidly, it is sticking the tongue out at
the High Court judge. I hope that that judge will hear about it. Will
the Minister explain why the declaration is not available in the Vote
Office?
David
Cairns: It is in the Libraries of both Houses. My hon.
Friend is a parliamentarian of far greater experience than I am, but as
I understand it, the common practice on these occasionsit does
not happen very oftenis to place the document in the Libraries
of both Houses. I understand that that has happened. If it has not
happened, I apologise to him, but I believe that it has. We have tried
to make the declaration known to the Committee and, by its placement in
the Libraries of both Houses, to hon.
colleagues.
Dr.
William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Surely the Minister
has to acknowledge that the declaration, and other recent declarations
by the courts, has not brought credit on the Secretary of State or the
relevant Department.
David
Cairns: I simply do not accept that; consider the sequence
of events. The High Court was asked to prevent the order from going
ahead. It chose not to do so, although it could have done. It had been
presented with 16 charges, some of them very serious. Let me be candid
with the hon. Gentleman. If the result had been the other way
roundif the High Court had found against the Government on 15
of the 16 countswe would not be here today; I would not have
proceeded with this order. I have not in any way hidden that fact.
I have taken incredibly seriously the charges that we did not have a
full 12-week consultation period, which we did, that we were partial in
our response to some of the respondents, which we were not, and that we
did not give adequate consideration to the consultation, which we did.
If it had gone the other way, we would not be here today. The fact of
the matter is that 16 counts were brought against the Government and
one was upheld. I have explained what it was, and I shall not tire the
Committee by going through it again. I made the judgment, and indeed
the judge made the judgment, that it does not rise to a level that
would warrant these proceedings being
stopped.
Mark
Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Further to the point made by my
hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I too checked
at the Vote Office. I also made a point of checking at the Library, and
it was with some difficulty that the Library staff were eventually able
to trace the declaration in the home affairs section and have it faxed
to them. The Minister has said a number of times that the Consumer
Council sought to injunct parliamentary proceedings. The council had,
at an earlier point before the order was laid, tried to injuct its
laying. Once it was laid, the Consumer Council at no point asked the
High Court to injunct parliamentary proceedings. It asked for a
declaration, and a declaration was
issued.
David
Cairns: I must say that my hon. Friend is clutching at
straws. The Consumer Council asked for the order not to be laid, but
the judge did not allow that, so we laid it. That is why we are here
today. Let us be very clear: if the Consumer Council had been granted
what it wanted, we would not be here today, because the judge would not
have let us.
I offer
one more significant note of clarification, which I want to put on the
record. I am advised by my officials that we offered to place the
declaration in the Vote Office but were told by the Journal Office that
we should not do so and that it should be placed instead in the
Libraries of the House. That was what we did. If that was incorrect, I
shall apologise, but we went to the proper lengths to draw the matter
to the Committees
attention.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): This is a very
important matter. Does the Minister recognise that the Consumer Council
has no angle to have a go at the Government? It is simply looking after
the interests of consumers, and to that extent the Government have been
remiss in not taking its position more seriously. Secondly, to say that
the Government were not indicted on 15 of the 16 charges is no argument
at all in undermining the importance of the charge of which they were
found guilty. Why is the Minister being so cavalier about that charge,
which he knows is
serious?