Mr.
Skinner: I know a bit about privatisation, and I know a
little bit about how the privatisation of the coal mining industry, in
which I worked for 21 years, was taken through the House of Commons. It
just so happens that, at the time, I had to watch about 10 or 11 people
from Northern Ireland march into the Lobbies with Heseltine and
Mrs. Thatcher and the Tory Government to get the
privatisation of the coal industry through. It would have failed
without them. Do not talk to me about privatisation; that was not
something that was denied by a Minister, it was real privatisation, and
the people from Northern Ireland, who had feathered their nests for
year after year, walked into the Lobby and smashed the coal industry
into smithereens. Do not talk to me about
that.
The
Chairman: Order. In responding, could the hon. Gentleman
return to the order?
Mark
Durkan: I can assure my hon. Friend that whichever
Northern Ireland Members went through the Lobby to support Margaret
Thatcher on privatisation or anything else, they did not include
members of the Social Democratic and Labour
party.
Mr.
Skinner: They are still moaning
today.
Mark
Durkan: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to intervene on
them with those
points.
Mr.
Skinner: If the Chairman will let me, I might, but he will
probably stop
me.
Mark
Durkan: As well as the risks that privatisation gives rise
to, which are risks not just for the consumer of Northern Ireland but
for the taxpayer in general, we must examine the affordability tariff.
The Minister has rightly said that the Government are pleased with the
steps that they have taken on the tariff and that it is a much more
progressive provision than is available outside Northern Ireland. Hon.
Members should understand that one of the key drivers behind the
affordability tariff model is the Consumer Council. That clearly shows
that the council is doing its job and is prepared to work well and
positively with the Government. It has not been adopting some sort of
cussed Dont talk to us about any of this
model. The problem
arises when we ask about the sustainability of the affordability tariff
and its long-term prospects. In the court case, details emerged from
e-mails that had been ricocheting inside the Government. An e-mail
passing between a civil servant and a special adviser
stated: However,
as youll know, the
CSTs Chief
Secretary to the
Treasury letter
to the Secretary of State last autumn made it clear that the AT
(Affordability Tariff) must not be repercussive and must be reviewed
after three years (ie by 2010). Treasury officials have reinforced this
point by saying that the AT should end in 2010, though they acknowledge
that a devolved administration would be free to continue/develop the
policy ... DRPs view is that, given the close involvement
of the CST in agreeing the framework for taking the introduction of
charges forward, and that HMT has been very specific that their
agreement to the AT extends only to
2010
The
Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that
quotations should be
brief.
Mark
Durkan: I shall finish off, then. The e-mail went on to
say that nothing could
be said about the position beyond then without seeking formal CST
approval, which is virtually certain to be declined in view of the
repercussive issues. The
e-mail gives the impression that thinking is going on inside the
Government that has not been publicly shared, and that hidden
liabilities and limits are built into what the Government are
providing. When
it comes to charges and payments, we see that plans are already being
drawn up for debt management. Papers are being prepared by an outfit
called the Crystal Alliance, an alliance of Xansa, Echo and AMT-SYBEX,
drawing up a risk-based collection strategy. The strategy rather
offensively maps Northern Ireland out in terms
of affluent achievers, satisfied
maturity, white collar owners, large
family suburbs, seniors and singles and
low-income elders. The seventh item is rock
bottom. The strategy actually defines a group of people in
Northern Ireland as rock bottom. I notice that large
parts of my constituency are mapped in red as being rock bottom, as
well as large parts of other constituencies.
The risk-based collection or
smart debt strategy involves pursuing the poorest
hardest. The poorestthe people who have been classified as rock
bottomare to be the subject of legal action and brought to
court far quicker than the affluent achievers or anybody else allowing
themselves to be in a position of debt. That is simply socially
unacceptable, but it is part of the plans that are being made alongside
the order. If hon. Members do not want to subscribe to such cynical
social injustice, they should withhold their support from the
order. 5.34
pm
Dr.
McCrea: This legislation is a classic example of the
Government doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. It seems that they
are more interested in getting it done than getting it right. Any
justification for the Government proceeding as they intend to do must
surely have been removed as a result of the declaration by the High
Court in Belfast last week. The first Northern Ireland High Court
declaration to Parliament sets out clearly and succinctly that the
order was not subject to full consultation. The declaration comes after
the Consumer Council mounted a successful judicial review. Parliament
must now consider whether it is prepared to pass the legislation by way
of an Order in Council, knowing that the consumer voice has not been
properly considered and that Parliament has been denied an opportunity
to debate the relevant issues fully in advance because the Government
abandoned plans to hold a Grand Committee debate.
Like other
Committee members, I have spoken to the chairman of the Consumer
Council, who is listening to todays debate. The council has the
right to be angry at the manner in which the Minister has portrayed the
judicial review. He seems to have said that the Government were found
guilty in one out of the 16 cases and that the rest of the cases were
totally rejected. It is interesting that the Governments
representatives fought against the Courts order that the
Government should pay 80 per cent. of the Consumer
Councils costs. If the Government are only one-sixteenth guilty
and fifteen-sixteenths innocent, why did the Court order that they
should pay 80 per cent. of the councils costs? That was fought
by the Governments legal team, who argued that costs should not
be awarded at all. The Minister should carefully reconsider his
presentation to the
Committee.
Lembit
Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on the
Ministers logic, if the Consumer Council had brought 32 charges
instead of 16 and only one case had gone through, the Government would
believe that they are only one thirty-second guilty and therefore less
guilty than if all the cases had gone through? There is absolutely no
logic whatever in them feeling less guilty because 15 of the 16 charges
did not go through.
Dr.
McCrea: It would be interesting to know. If things were as
simple as the Minister put them, the Court, if it desired to allocate
costs proportionately, should have awarded costs of only 6 per cent.,
but it awarded costs of 80 per cent. That was a statement. If the
Minister wants to challenge me on the figure of 80 per cent.,
that will be interesting. By awarding 80 per cent., the Court was
acknowledging the seriousness of the matter and of the breach of faith.
The Courts determination was unusual, as was the declaration
that was made to the Committee today. I do not think that that has ever
happened beforecertainly not in Northern Ireland
business. Apart from
the problems with the substance of the draft order, my party and I
believe that there are several underlying reasons why the Government
should not proceed in the manner in which they are. They lack a mandate
in Northern Ireland for their proposals. It is clear from the position
taken by all the political parties, the business community and people
with other sectional interests in Northern Ireland that there is
widespread opposition to the proposals. In our manifesto for the
Westminster elections, we gave a commitment that we would endeavour to
oppose the Governments proposals for water charging.
One of my colleagues in the
previous Assemblya member of the DUPwas the Minister
with responsibility for this matter and believed that an alternative
route could be taken to deal with it. However, the Government seem to
be pressing ahead even though they tell us that they are confident that
there will be a new Assembly on 26 March. If they are so confident of
that, why are they moving this order today? Why are they pressing on
with this matter full steam ahead if they are so confident? Methinks
they protest too
much. I know that the
hon. Member for Bolsover has been exercised today. He said that he was
not here because of the Whips, although I saw his name and the Whip
from his party said that it was probably because of the normal
channels, but he talked about people handing money back and Assembly
Members not dealing with the issue of water charges.
I remind the hon. Gentleman
that just a matter of months ago, his Governmentprobably with
his votevoted to give Sinn Fein-IRA hundreds of thousands of
pounds for not attending the House. If he wants to talk about
consistency, consistency would be encouraging and would be an
honourable manner in which to deal with the issue. There seems to be
sauce for the goose but not for the gander.
However, that was indirect. We
could have dealt with the issues had the Government desired to wait for
the Northern Ireland Assembly. The order is not subject to sufficient
parliamentary scrutiny. It is one of the most important issues
affecting Northern Ireland to come before Parliament during this
Session. However, due to the process by which Northern Ireland
legislation is dealt with here at Westminster, the order will receive
scant attention in Committee with absolutely no possibility of making
any amendments, no matter how good. For a Bill with 308 articles and 13
schedules, that is a constitutionally outrageous position. The
pre-legislative consultation process does not make up for that
inadequacy. Even that process is inadequate. Decisions should be left
until
Lady
Hermon: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman,
particularly while I was agreeing with something he said, which is very
rare indeed, but I should like to check once more on a vital point. We
are dealing with the devolved matters of water and sewerage. Given that
his party has indicated through him that it is opposed to various
things in the order, will he give a commitment that his party will seek
to undo it, given that with a fair wind and co-operation from his
party, the Assembly will be back in post by 26
March?
Dr.
McCrea: I can assure the hon. Lady that I have no right
whatever to make a commitment about what will be done in the Northern
Ireland Assembly or through the Executive.
[Interruption.] She may laugh at that, but she has
not the ability either, because she could not amend the order even if
she wanted to. Her ability is not really exciting either. To mock
others is not necessarily the best way to go about the democratic
process. I will give
the hon. Lady this promise: if an Assembly and an Executive are
running, this is one of the major issues that must be tackled
seriously. I cannot give a policy regarding the final outcome, because
I might not be in the Executive. However, I can say that it is a major
issue. It is a key issue. It is one of the most important issues
affecting Northern Ireland, and I believe that it is one of the most
important issues that the Executive would have to consider if it were
up and running. That is a commitment that I can
give.
Mr.
Skinner: What is your personal
view?
Dr.
McCrea: The hon. Member for Foyle was talking earlier
about his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I was
going to say to him that with friends like the hon. Member for
Bolsover, from some of the statements that he was making, I do not
think that he really needs enemies.
Judy
Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): Could the hon. Gentleman
satisfy Committee members curiosity to know what his
partys position is and whether it would seek to reverse the
order if it were in a position to do so when, as we hope, the Assembly
gets going
again?
Dr.
McCrea: If the hon. Lady will rest herself a little and
wait, I will come to the issues that are exciting her mind.
[Interruption.] For he who waits, it is sometimes
beneficial. That is what the process is all aboutbeing able to
deal with the issues that come before us. Although there are
significant accounting issues in relation to the self-financing of
water charges in Northern Ireland, ultimately the existence, or detail
of water charges should be a matter for the people of Northern Ireland
to determine. There are clear implications for spending in Northern
Ireland of not proceeding with water charges. However, as a member of a
party that believes in devolution, I believe that those choices should
be made by the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected
representatives in the Assembly.
In addition to the general
considerations set out above, I have a number of specific objections to
the Governments proposals. They do not take account of
the contribution made already to the provision of water services. I know
that the Minister made a statement that in Northern Ireland we do not
pay anything for water. I have been in local government for the past 34
years and I was vice-president of a group of local authorities. In our
dealings with local government and the previous Minister, it was
acknowledged that we were paying through the regional
rate. The idea that
nothing has been paid in the past is not factually correct. For many
years the proportion that we were paying was through the regional rate.
That has to be acknowledged. In fact, we need to find out where that
money was directed. We are talking about the amount of money needed for
the infrastructure, water, sewage and so on. For over 35 years, because
this House was unwilling to take on terrorism, the money was diverted
and spent on security measures. For many years, therefore,
infrastructure was neglected, for which we are now being asked to pay.
Other constituencies were not experiencing that
situation[Interruption.] Thankfully, they did not
experience it. Yet in reality a large portion of the budget was
redirected towards security measures. Had the House taken that more
seriously and taken on terrorism rather than placating it, we could
have had more money to deal with day-to-day issues in Northern
Ireland. That relates
specifically to the detail of the order. No account has been taken of
the fact that that contribution has been made for many years through
the regional rate. Also, the Government were disingenuous in their
justification for the water charges. They said that they sought to
justify water charges on the basis that they were addressing the water
framework directive, but then they devised a system that did not even
meet its requirements.
The Government have used the
water charges as a mechanism to increase the level of local taxation in
Northern Ireland. In reality, water charges have been used as a cover
to mask the increase in the level of taxation on the people of Northern
Ireland. At the same time, there has been a significant increase in the
regional rate and a new rating valuation system. Although there might
be a justification for a separate charging mechanism for water charges,
there does not necessarily need to be significant increases in the
overall tax burden.
Furthermore, the Government
have reneged on proposals on the reinvestment and reform initiative. As
initially proposed, water charges were to be regarded as qualifying
revenue when considering the capacity to avail of the barring power
under the RRI. Since then, however, the Government have changed the
rules and as a result there is no barring advantage on water charges.
Indeed, when compared with the overall Northern Ireland budget, water
charges make up a very small percentage of local spending. In essence,
the significant additional burden of water charges on the householder
makes very little difference to the amount that is
spent. I turn to
privatisation. Frankly, this order is privatisation by the back door. I
know that people and parties believe in
privatisation
|