David
Cairns: I had not got to that part of my
speech.
Lady
Hermon: I am sorry, but with the greatest respect to the
Minister, he ought to have brought the Committees attention to
the fact that a judgment had been issued against him. He gave an
undertaking in the House on 13 June
that all ...
responses will be considered very carefully.
The High Court has ruled that the General
Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which has a statutory duty and
should not be set aside or ignored by a Minister, should have been
listened to when it gave its response to the draft order. The
consultation was reduced, and the Minister knows perfectly well from
the judgment that he was highly criticised by the judge. It is a great
regret that the Northern Ireland Court Service did not have that
judgment available on its website this afternoon for the benefit of all
members of the
Committee. Words
should mean something in this House. The other interesting remark that
the Minister made on 13 June in the same debate on that paving
legislation was in response to an intervention from me. I
asked: Would
the Minister enlighten the Committee about the Governments
proposal to introduce water
metering? The Minister
replied: Yes,
there will be particular reference to water metering in the main order
which is out for consultation at the moment. Essentially, it will be a
requirement for new build houses to have water meters installed.
Secondly, we will make water meters available to any pensioner who
wishes to have one installed.[Official Report, First
Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 13 June 2006; c.
3-4.] Words should
mean something. The Minister was referring to the order that we are
considering this afternoon. I should like him to pinpoint for me the
article in the order that makes particular reference to water metering,
which is what he said it would include on 13 June. I have read the
order and I have noticed that it contains almost no reference to
meteringin fact, the word scarcely appears in 308 articles
and 13 schedules. If my memory serves me well, there is only
article 81, which is entitled Conditions of connection
concerning metering, andhon. Members will have to turn
to halfway through the order for thisarticle 204, which is
entitled Right of consumer to elect for charging by reference
to
volume. Article
204 does not single out pensioners, those on low incomes, those who are
vulnerable and those whom the hon. Member for Foyle has already
identified and who have been analysed carefully behind the scenes by
officials, as receiving preferential treatment. The Minister said that
particular reference was madeto those categories. Quite the
opposite is the case. Article 204
states: the consumer
falls within any description prescribed for the purposes of this
Article, the consumer may at any time give the
undertaker meaning
the provider of the water or the
sewerage a
notice ... requiring the undertaker to fix charges in respect of
the supply by reference to the volume of water
supplied. There is no
presumption of metering at all. The onus is clearly on the consumer to
apply for a meter. UnfortunatelyI have not invented this; it is
in black and whitearticle 204(3) goes on to
state: A water
undertaker is not obliged to give effect to a measured charges notice
if (a) it is not reasonably practicable to fix charges in respect of
the premises by reference to the volume of water supplied; or (b) to do
so would involve the incurring by the undertaker of unreasonable
expense. I would like
the Minister to define unreasonable expense. It is that
article that has particularly concerned me and I have intervened on the
Minister to ask about pensioners in rural areas of County Tyrone
where I come from. My 90-year-old father is still on a home farm there,
farming away, still needing water, but he lives down a remote lane. I
should like an assurance from the Minister that the water undertaker
will not consider it to be an unreasonable expense to install a meter
for him if he requests
one. I should also
like clarification from the Minister about a letter he sent to me on 24
October about pensioners requiring meters. I am disturbed by the
letter. Again, it starts:
Dear Sylvia, Thank you
for your
letter. However, it
continues: All
eligible pensioners will be entitled to apply for a water meter to be
installed at their primary
residence. It is not the
case that pensioners broadly will be given meters. According to this
letter, only eligible pensioners will get meters. Equally worrying is
what will happen to a customer who has a standard charge applied and
who wishes to have a meter in order to reduce the charge. In his letter
the Minister says that if a pensioner opts for a meter and then
discovers that their
bills are not any cheaper, they also have the option to revert to an
un-metered account within 12 months of the date of
installation. That is
extremely welcome. However, the letter continues:
in this case the meter will not
be removed, and any subsequent account holders at that address will be
liable for metered charges with no option to
revert. Why on earth
should that be the case? If a pensioner moves into that house, why is
there no option available to the subsequent owner of the property to
revert from metering? I would like the Minister to clarify
that. Finallythere
are enough points for the Minister to addressthere is an issue
in which I am particularly interested. It came to my attention a few
weeks ago through the Electricity Consents (Planning) (Northern
Ireland) Order 2006 that the Department of the Environment will play
second fiddle to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in
considering licences for wind farms to generate electricity. I stand on
the side of the environmentalists, and the Minister has made much of
the fact that an environmental obligation will be placed upon those who
take over the provision of water services and sewerage charges. The
Minister should have mentioned article 8 of the order, General
environmental and recreational duties, which
states: It
shall be the duty of each of the
following (a)
a Northern Ireland
department; (b) the
Authority; and (c)
every company holding an appointment as a relevant
undertaker, to consider
various conservation requirements and interests. May I remind the
Minister, given the broad sweep of his portfolios, that he recently
signed off a third letter to me? It was with his Department of the
Environment hat on and related to serious concerns that have been
raised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The worrying
fact in terms of conservation and the environment is that in
1990, 16 years ago, the Select Committee on the Environment
reported that the designation of areas of special scientific interest
in Northern Ireland lagged many years behind the comparable site
designation
programme elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Minister acknowledged 16
years later, on 5 October 2006, that the Environment and Heritage
Service is conscious of the need for more SSSIs and has previously
acknowledged that progress in relation to designations has been slower
than intended. He said that that is now being given
priority. However, I
would say to the Minister that, because Northern Ireland still lags so
far behind in SSSIs, many of them have been ruined beyond recognition
through environmental change, agriculture, building and so on, and are
now not worth saving. The Department of the Environment has not really
shown a particular interest in creating a duty for various bodies to
respect the environment. I would like an assurance from the Minister
that, in this particular case, water and sewerage service providers
will not be more destructive than they have to be in taking pipes
across green fields. The Environment and Heritage Service has to date
gravely disappointed members of the RSPB. Although I am not a signed-up
member, I was once upon a time. Ornithology is an interest of mine, but
I do not think that I have paid my dues, which I should do. It is a
concern, and I raise it because the Governments track record is
woeful.
Several
hon. Members
rose
The
Chairman: Order. I am going to call Mr.
Mackinlay next, but I urge the two speakers remaining before I bring
the Minister back to be as brief as they can so that he can respond to
all the points that have been
made. 6.18
pm
Andrew
Mackinlay: I have come along here because I am interested
in both the form and substance of the order. I shall deal first with
the form. I personally think that it is wrong that we are dealing with
a major piece of legislation of such a scale and volume in this way. On
the substance, I wish to say some things rather approvingly of its
contents in a moment, but it is certainly wrong to deal with it in this
way. It comes against the backdrop of last week, when the full Chamber
of the House of Commons passed another piece of legislation which I
broadly supported, as did the whole Housethere was no
Divisionall in one day. If for any reason devolution does not
come about, I hope that we do not do such rubber-stamping, handing down
tablets of stone and law-making by decree as we are doing this
afternoon. There is no getting away from it; that is not the way in
which a democracy should make law for any jurisdiction. I have
expressed my disappointment that the High Court declaration is not
available in the Vote Office. The Vote Office is extremely important
and I am dismayed that the General Officeor so we are told, but
it might have a different view of the matter when we leave this
roomdecreed that that declaration should not be available in
the Vote Office. It should have been, particularly as all 600 Members
of Parliament will go through the form of approving the order, assuming
that it gets through the Committee under your stewardship,
Mr. Caton. I want to make it clear that I
will never tire of reminding the House that we need to provide detailed
scrutiny and accountability for legislation, even if we broadly support
it. The Minister has
not explained why the matter did not go before the Grand Committee.
That is important, too. The Grand Committee could have met here or in
the Senate Chamber at Stormont. That would have sent a good signal to
those in Northern Ireland who are interested in parliamentary democracy
and scrutiny. They could have seen it happening on their own doorsteps.
When he winds up, the Minister should indicate why this matter was not
considered by the Grand
Committee. I
listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that he
will not be offendedif he is, it will be rather sadwhen
I say that I was waiting for the beef. He said that he was unhappy.
Well, we are unhappy about a lot of things a lot of the time. However,
at no stageI am open to correction on this, and will give way
to himdid he offer an alternative to the broad thrust of the
provisions of the order. He will forgive me, but I have noticed that,
rightly or wrongly, Conservatives, unlike the Labour party, offer
themselves in the political marketplace in Northern Ireland. They are
clearly planning to offer themselves in a number of constituencies at
the next general election. They obviously see a gap in the market
thanks to the reduction in the Ulster Unionist party. The relevance of
that, Mr. Caton, is that I suspect that when you and I are
contesting the next general election, the Conservatives will be saying
to the people of Northern Ireland, Our spokesperson expressed
concern about the water provision and the rates. He did not do
it very effectively, and I want it to be noted that he did not produce
the alternative that he should have provided if he was going to be so
critical of the order.
Mr.
Laurence Robertson: I do not take any offence. We have had
a number of robust debates and exchanges. I said that I did not like
having the system tied to house pricesI would rather
have it tied to metering, but that is not the option before
usand that I would rather it was decided by members of
the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that is not the option before us. I
also said that I wanted to listen to the debate. Sometimes I come into
Committee and say what I feel from the outset, but I feel no shame at
all about coming into a parliamentary meeting and listening to the
debate before deciding which way to vote.
Andrew
Mackinlay: That is very laudable, and it gives me the
opportunity to counsel my hon. Friends about the proposed water rating
system. I counsel them to be cautious and to pay attention to this
matter, because they will rememberpainfullyhow Scotland
was used as a laboratory for the poll tax. Now, Northern Ireland is
undoubtedly being used as a laboratory for the new local authority
rating system and for water rates. We must be very cautious about the
new system because of the impact that it would have on our voters if it
were introduced in England. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover says
that he does not agree.
Mr.
Skinner: Water is privatised in
England.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I am referring to the rating system, and to
what is being introduced in Northern Ireland. I am not opposed to it; I
chose my words
carefully and crafted my comments with precision. We ought to be
cautious and to be conscious of the fact that Northern Ireland is being
used as a laboratory for the new system of local government finance
through the rating system in local government in Northern Ireland and,
too, for the water system. We should pay attention to that because the
system could be transportable with an impact on our constituents for
good or ill.
Mr.
Skinner: I just do not agree with that. I have been in
this place for 30-odd years, and almost every year loads of money has
gone from the Britishthe English, the Welsh, in some cases the
Scottishtaxpayer to Northern Ireland. I have often referred to
its public sector as almost like a socialist utopia. The sad thing is
that they do not vote socialist; they vote right wing and put these
berks in.
Andrew
Mackinlay: On the last point, it is a great tragedy that
there is not Labour representation right across the geographical area
and the communities of Northern Ireland in the way that exists in
England and, in particular, in the central belt of Scotland, to which
Northern Ireland is comparable. But that is for another day.
My hon. Friends point
reminds me that I wanted to say some things broadly in favour of the
order. It seems that everybody has a vested interest in clarity on the
water costs of Northern Ireland. There is no transparency at present;
it is lost in the regional rates. There are the arguments that have
been articulated by my hon. Friend about to what extent there is a
subvention from the Exchequer that might or might not affect his
constituents and mine to the benefit of funding in Northern Ireland.
That debate, in my view, is likely to exist and be a source of
aggravation unless or until there is greater disclosure and clarity
about the money raised and the cost of providing the
service.
|