Dr.
McCrea: Here is a new convert for privatisation. I know
the hon. Gentleman has a chip on his shoulder about the miners, but let
us be honest—is he saying that one situation justifies the
other? We have a new convert from the left of the new Labour movement
whose message to his constituents is, “Let’s have
privatisation, but let’s not call it that.” The DUP
continues
to—
Mr.
Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Dr.
McCrea: No, I am not giving way. [ Hon.
Members: “Ah!”] Actually, I will give
way. I shall be
delighted.
Mr.
Skinner: I just want to remind the hon. Gentleman that I
was talking about real privatisation when I referred to what happened
to the coal industry. The Ulster Unionists—the whole lot of
them—walked into the Lobby; he might well have been among
them.
Dr.
McCrea: I am not an Ulster Unionist, but a Democratic
Unionist.
Mr.
Skinner: The whole lot of them—the Democratic
Unionists and all the rest. The only ones not to go in were the SDLP.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle was not here at the
time. What the hon. Member for South Antrim is talking about has been
denied by the Minister. It is not in the order.
Several Members have alluded to
the fact that it might be privatisation—that it might be. I tell
the hon. Gentleman that if I thought I would be voting for
privatisation, I would not do it. That would not be a big deal for our
Front Bench or the Whips; they know about that anyway. What I am
talking about, and I have said it consistently, is that the hon.
Gentleman and his mates in particular—less so my hon. Friend the
Member for Foyle—had the chance to deal with this matter
themselves and at leisure and do it in a way that suited them. But the
truth is that they took the money, put it into their pockets and ran
away, in contrast to the reference made about Sinn Fein. That was not
about wages, but
expenses.
Mr.
Skinner: So the hon. Gentleman is saying that his expenses
are not valid? Is he saying that?
The
Chairman: Order. Interventions should be
short.
Dr.
McCrea: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was
helpful. It shows that the left of the Labour party is getting riled.
That tells us clearly that the hon. Gentleman is trying to cover up
what he is doing today in this Committee—supporting
privatisation. The Government do not call it that; they do not call
things by their name any more. They are not Labour, but new
Labour—they put new titles on things. However, the situation is
the same whether the hon. Gentleman wants to believe it or not. He is
not told about it by his Minister today, because he might change his
mind. However, for anyone who knows anything about the
issue, this is a major step towards privatisation. It will be
interesting to see how the hon. Gentleman casts his
vote. As
far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and as far as wages in the
Northern Ireland Assembly are concerned, we asked the Secretary of
State, “Why not close it down? Why not stop the
salaries?” Of course, he did not want to. Why? It was because he
had another agenda. No one else in Northern Ireland should be blamed;
the hon. Gentleman’s Ministers and his Secretary of State would
not do it. We threw the challenge out to him. Therefore, as far as this
is
concerned—
The
Chairman: Order. Can we get back to the
order?
Mr.
Skinner: Get him into
order.
The
Chairman: I am
trying.
Dr.
McCrea: I shall certainly not argue your ruling,
Mr. Caton. Sometimes we can be misled by the interventions
of others, but I shall come back directly to the
order. On the method
of assessment, we continue to believe that the option of a voluntary
meeting, with appropriate consideration of the infrastructure cost,
should be available for all Northern Ireland customers. We reject both
the requirement for universal metering, which is too costly, and no
metering, which is unfair for this alternative approach. As a proxy for
ability to pay, the capital value of a person’s home is too
inaccurate to be the only reliable method for assessing water charges.
We
also believe that the argument that only the better-off would opt for
metering could be negated by setting the fixed-cost element at an
appropriate level. Ultimately, the wider the availability of water
metering, the greater the potential for encouraging water conservation.
Although we welcome metering being available to certain groups under
the Government’s proposal, we do not believe that it should be
limited to those groups. In reality, however, it is not clear that
vulnerable groups will benefit from metering. Therefore, the metering
alternative as currently proposed may prove to be a somewhat empty
gesture. I know that
other hon. Members want to make points and I appreciate that you have
given us leeway in the debate, Mr. Caton, so I conclude by
saying simply that I will certainly endeavour to oppose the order and I
will urge other hon. Members to oppose it as
well. 5.55
pm
Lady
Hermon: May I say again what a pleasure it is to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton, and what a delight it
has been to see you manage the hon. Member for South Antrim and keep
him well in line? I am sure his party leader will wish he could do the
same
thing.
Dr.
McCrea: I would not go down that line if I were
you.
Lady
Hermon: I am moving on briskly, I can assure the hon.
Gentleman. I
shall deal with one or two issues raised by the hon. Member for
Bolsover. First, only two of the 18 Northern
Ireland Members of Parliament who are elected do not hold a dual
mandate: the hon. Member for South Down (Mr.
McGrady)—I am sorry that he is not in the Committee this
afternoon—and me. I am not taking the wages or salaries, or any
of the
allowances— Mr.
Skinner: A lot of your pals
are.
Lady
Hermon: Yes. Well, we shall continue. One of the things
that the hon. Member for Bolsover said would persuade him to vote
against the order this afternoon was the key issue of
privatisation.
Mr.
Skinner: That is not in the
order.
Lady
Hermon: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman,
who is intervening from a sedentary position, may I just deal with the
issue? I pray in aid the explanatory memorandum and I praise the civil
servants who go to an enormous amount of trouble to make the
explanatory memorandums for all our Orders in Council as comprehensive
as possible. On this occasion, the civil servants and the explanatory
memorandum go further than the Minister indicated in his opening
contribution to the Committee this afternoon. If my memory and my
hearing serve me correctly, the Minister said that this order is not
about privatisation. I am only drawing the attention of the hon. Member
for Bolsover to the issue. I am sure that all members of the Committee
have already read the 308 articles of and 13 schedules to the order,
but I am tempted to say, “Hands up those who have read the
entire order and those who will be happy to vote for it to go through
this evening without even reading
it.” It is a
shameful and embarrassing procedure that we go through with Orders in
Council for the 1.7 million people in Northern Ireland, within the
United Kingdom. I am ashamed as a Member of Parliament that today we
are going to countenance in two and a half hours hugely significant
changes to pave the way for the privatisation of water and sewerage in
Northern Ireland and to introduce charging for people, without any
guarantee in the order in respect of metering, without any guarantee in
the order for vulnerable categories of people, who may not be able to
pay—for pensioners or for the disabled. That is not in the
order. Interestingly,
what is in the explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 3, is this
statement: “The
proposed reform of the water industry in Northern Ireland will involve
transferring responsibility for delivery of water and sewerage services
on 1 April 2007”, which
is only a few months
away, “from the
Department to a government owned company (‘GoCo’). This
will be appointed as (initially the sole) water undertaker and sewerage
undertaker for the whole of Northern Ireland and will be run on a
commercial basis subject to utility
regulation.” Ann
McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): As the hon. Lady has
described it, the position is very similar to that which currently
applies to Scottish Water, which remains in public ownership and is in
the hands of the Scottish Executive. Presumably when this new Executive
are formed, they will have the ability to retain the body in public
ownership.
Lady
Hermon: I am most grateful for that intervention. Lessons
could be well learned by the Minister, who is charged with
responsibilities in both the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland
Office. I am sure that hon. Lady has read the order thoroughly, so I
draw her attention to article 13—unlucky for some. It
states: “a company may be
appointed— (a)
by the Department;
or (b) ... with
... authorisation given by the Department, by the Authority, to be
the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker for any
area.” That means any
area of Northern Ireland.
The provisions pave the way for
privatisation. I received a short but telling letter signed by the
Minister dated 27 August 2006, which starts, “Dear
Sylvia”. That is very friendly and I thank him. However, the
letter was short and terse and was about the possible privatisation of
the water service. The Minister said, as he has repeated again this
afternoon, that work has been undertaken
“to set up a Government Owned
Company (GoCo) which will be known as Northern Ireland Water
Limited.” He added
something that, interestingly, he did not need
to: “Privatisation
has been ruled out for the foreseeable
future.” Of course, that
means that privatisation is being aimed
at—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but with the greatest
respect to the Minister there is no point in his intervening from a
sedentary position. If he had really meant that the order did not pave
the way for privatisation, there was no need to include the words
“for the foreseeable
future”.
David
Cairns: Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Lady
Hermon: Thank you. Just put it on the record that we are
not heading for privatisation.
David
Cairns: Even in the world of Northern Ireland politics,
words must mean what they say. One cannot interpret what I have said as
a prelude to privatisation. I have said that we are not here today
privatising water. I have also mentioned something that has
conveniently been ignored by the hon. Members for Foyle and for South
Antrim and by the hon. Lady. In direct response to the excellent point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North, I must point out
to them that when this matter returns to the Assembly, as I hope it
will on 26 March, which is my father’s birthday, there will be a
triple lock preventing privatisation from
occurring. First, the
Minister in charge would have to decide that privatisation was a good
idea and bring it to the Executive. Secondly, the Executive would have
to decide that it was a good idea. Thirdly, there would have to be a
vote in the Assembly on a cross-community basis. There is a triple lock
on this moving to privatisation. The exact point made by my hon. Friend
applies: this belongs to the Executive. I will not fetter what they
will do, but it is up to them.
Lady
Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for that
lengthy intervention. I look forward to him pinpointing in his
winding-up speech the article in the
order that identifies the triple lock, which he has now skilfully
deployed twice to this Committee. I have read the order and I do not
see any mention of a triple lock. I am intrigued to see whether the
Minister can identify it and clear that
up. Is
the Minister confirming to this Committee that his statement that
privatisation is ruled out “for the foreseeable future”
means that there will be no privatisation in the foreseeable future
indefinitely?[Interruption.] Thank you. I am most grateful to
the Minister; a triple lock will be identified to this Committee to
confirm what he has just indicated in his intervention. Will the
Minister confirm that he will pinpoint the article that identifies the
triple lock? In fact, I shall allow him to intervene on me
now.
David
Cairns: I refer the hon. Lady to the article 273 of the
order, which is headed “Disposal of securities, etc” and
says: “The
Department shall not dispose of any securities or rights issued under
Article 271 ... except ... in a case of a disposal requiring
Assembly approval, with that
approval”. It
continues: “A
disposal requires Assembly approval if, in the opinion of the
Department, the effect of the disposal would be that the successor
company is no longer controlled by the
Department.”
Lady
Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. We all
listened carefully to his intervention. Is there any indication that
there must be a direction from the First Minister or from the
Executive, or a cross-party or community support vote? No—that
is not a triple lock, but a skilful deployment of the term
“triple lock”, in order to give the impression, quite
wrongly, that the Assembly will be able to stop
privatisation.
The one thing
that the Minister said that was useful and worth repeating was that
words in this House must mean something. Words in this House should
mean something. Let me remind him of the words that he used in this
House—again, quite shamefully—in relation to an Order in
Council. That was the Draft Water and Sewerage Services (Miscellaneous
Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which went through the House
at breakneck speed on 13 June this year.
There were two things that were
intriguing in what the Minister promised to do. First, in referring to
the order, he
said: “The
substance of the reform will be introduced in an order later this year.
I launched consultation on that draft legislation on 1 June and I
should like to take this opportunity to encourage all interested
parties to submit their responses. I give an undertaking that all such
responses will be considered very
carefully.” As we began
this Committee, it was something of a curiosity that the Minister,
having been at the receiving end of a High Court judgment, made
absolutely no reference to it in his opening remarks until he was
intervened
upon.
| 
