Mark
Durkan: My hon. Friend mentioned transparency, and on that
basis he welcomes the order. Does he recognise that we do not have
transparency about what will stem from the order? We do not know the
story with the licence, the strategic business plan or with the
Secretary of States agreement with the Treasury back in 2005.
There are huge questions about where the assumptions on capital value
came from. There are basic questions as to why we are talking about a
situation where the issues of Crown immunity are being considered in a
particular way in relation to corporate immunity as a way of getting
around the European Commission letter of formal
notice.
The
Chairman: Order. That intervention was too
long.
Andrew
Mackinlay: All my hon. Friends comments might have
some validity, but that does not detract from the fact that at present
there is no transparency. People cannot easily identify their costs or
their contributions to the Water Service. I listened to Opposition
Members and one saidI think it was a Conservative Member, but I
am open to correctionthat people in Northern Ireland do not
want the
change. That might or might not be so, but it is a fact that the water
and sewerage service of Northern Ireland is in a chronic condition. It
is in a bad way. Anyone who has the interests of Northern Ireland and
the wider environmental interests of the United Kingdom at heart must
recognise that the question of water quality and sewage disposition and
processing needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency.
I noticed that article 280
relates to the disposal of sewage into water courses and so on. So far
as I can make outI have looked at the order and tried to study
itthere seems to be silence on the emission of sewage into the
open sea. It is our common sea, a sea that is shared by many of our
colleagues from Scots constituencies. I think that we all recognise
that we have a general obligation. Sewage that should be treated is not
being treated and is being disposed of into the sea because of lack of
governance in Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century save for
several periods of a few months in which there was some rule from
Stormont by devolved Assembly.
The water and sewerage systems
are in a parlous state and need to be addressed. I hope that the
Minister can tell us what impact all that has on the sea and beaches
around Northern Ireland, which are delicate. I take the point made by
the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the fragile nature
of some of our environmental sites in Northern Ireland, which are among
the richest in Europe. I deliberately mention Europe because those
sites are critical for wildlife, flora, fauna and bird migration, and
we all have a duty to have regard for those
matters. I am
disappointed by the Governments failure to use the opportunity
presented by the order to address a glaring omission in the Northern
Ireland statute book: the absence of an environmental protection
agency. Articles 7 and 8 instruct that there shall be guidance on
environmental matters, but that is worryingly qualified by the words
where practicable. We pass an awful lot of legislation
here for England and Wales in which that phrase is used. No doubt the
Scottish Parliament uses it too.
One could
live comfortably with that potential cop-out if one knew that in
Northern Irelandas in every other part of western Europe, not
just the UKthere was an environmental protection agency at
arms length from the Government. Northern Ireland is unique in
not having such an agency. All our near neighbours have one: Scotland,
England and the Republic of Ireland each have one and the Welsh
Assembly created one, but Northern Ireland does not have one.
Who will police and call to
book Her Majestys Government or the Government of Northern
Ireland when they are dilatory in protecting our environment generally
and particularly in relation to water? If there were backsliding, an
environmental protection agency could prosecute under article 299 on
prosecutions, with which I am sure that everyone is familiar, but no
such agency is listed as being the body that can initiate prosecutions
because no such body exists.
I urge the Government to
address the fact that there is no environmental protection agency in
Northern Ireland, which should be an acute embarrassment to them. I
know that they will say, Weve got a Committee looking
at it, but that is not good enough. [Interruption.] The
Minister raised his eyebrows in
exasperation when I said that; I know that it is not his fault, but we
have been in government for a long time and this should now be a matter
of priority. When I tackled his predecessors, of whom there have been
many, about this, one of them trotted out the excuse that there are far
too many quangos in Northern Ireland. That is true, but this one is
most necessary and is a symbol and totem of a modern western European
society and state that treats this important
matter
The
Chairman: Order. We are moving away from the order again,
and I would like to call the next speaker very
soon.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I have finished on that point, but I disagree
that this issue is not relevant. It is core to this business; it is the
other side of the coin. If we have this legislation, we need people to
pursue it and we cannot have the Government being judge and jury in
their own cause. My
next point concerns article 35I am actually referring to
article 35, Mr. Catonwhich deals with penalties. I
note that article does not provide for penalties in relation to
environmental matters, which are dealt with in article 7, or water
quality. Article 108 states that there will be a duty in relation to
water quality, but article 35 does not provide for the appropriate
penalty when there is a deficiency in water quality. I would have
thought that was core business for this order; if water quality is
demanded, which is correct, the penalties should be explicit under
article 35. Hon. Members will, of course, have noticed
that.
Finally, my hon. Friend the
Member for Foyle referred to the regime that is now being prepared and
put in place to deal with what is referred to as a smart depth
strategythat should certainly exercise all hon. Members,
particularly Labour Members. I am a realist and I also have a vested
interest on behalf of my ratepayers and taxpayers, as every hon. Member
does, to ensure that people pay their waywe do not support
people getting on a bus without paying. Clearly, if there is going to
be a charge for water, people should pay and it needs to be
collected. However, I
have concerns about putting in place a regime, which was fairly and
with precision described to the Committee by my hon. Friend as a way to
clobber some of the poorest hardest. Every hon. Member recognises that
we have to collect the revenue for services and this service is the
same as all others. You, Mr. Caton, I am sure and myself
have considerable reservations about private debt collection agencies.
Frankly, all hon. Members have enough evidence in our constituencies to
know that the public sector generally employs people who are little
more than thugs in many areas in terms of collecting resources. I want
an assurance from the Minister that, in this case, although people may
be skilled, professional and enthusiastic in fulfilling their duties of
bringing in debts, they will not trespass over that line as so many
debt collectors do. Bailiffs, as they are sometimes called, screw some
of the poorest and most disadvantaged in a way that is unacceptable
from a humanitarian point of view. The Minister
needs to reassure the Committee that that will not happen in
this case and is not being planned at the present time. If by chance he
is still the Minister with stewardship for these matters after 12
April, I hope that he will monitor the
situation. 6.37
pm
Lembit
Öpik: I have served on Northern Ireland matters
longer than anybody else on this Committee and this order is the
epitome of everything that is going wrong in the Governments
approach towards direct rule in Northern Ireland. There are 308
articles, 13 schedules and we have had a two and a half hour
debate with no opportunity to amend the
order. The
order has caused a lot of controversynot just because the
content is so abhorrent to many of us, but because of the process by
which it has been forced through. The Liberal Democrats have
consistently criticised the procedure on orders in council for at least
two years. We have made suggestions to the Government as to how to
improve the scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation and we even passed
an amendment to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 2006
earlier this year in another place. Yet still the Government have done
nothing to address the situation. Will the Government now take heed of
Mr. Justice Weatherup who has declared that the draft order
has not been subject to full
consultation? We have
said on a number of occasions that the system of orders in council is
hopelessly inadequate. Last autumn, the Secretary of State wrote to me
asking for our suggestions as to how to improve the scrutiny of
Northern Ireland legislation. Following discussions with colleagues in
another place, we responded to the Secretary of State on 2 November
2005 with a number of ideas as to how to bring the views of political
parties in Northern Ireland and those of political parties and
individuals with an interest in these matters here forward in a way
that adequately allows attention to be paid by both Houses of
Parliament to suggestions and improvements. It took almost five months
for me to receive a response from the Secretary of State.
The letter may have mentioned
the deadlines that had by then been established, and the hope of
getting the Assembly up and running by 24 November 2006. However, there
was no responseconsidered or otherwiseto the
suggestions that I had made to improve scrutiny of Northern Ireland
legislation. It has
now been more than a year since that initial consultation, and very
little progress has been made in improving in any way the process of
dealing with Northern Ireland legislation in Westminster. We cannot go
on like that. We cannot keep legislating for Northern Ireland by the
Order-in-Council process. It is totally
ineffective. On
13 July this year, an amendment was passed in the other place to allow
Orders in Council to be considered with amendments. That was a genuine
attempt to reform the process of legislating for Northern Ireland on
weighty matters such as the one before us. It is ludicrous that
Parliament has to consider what is actually primary legislation for
Northern Ireland on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. When this House
considered the amendment on 25 July, the Minister of State, Northern
Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson)
said:
the Government have given an
undertaking that, if we are unable to restore devolution by 24
November, we will quickly introduce measures to make direct rule more
accountable.[Official Report, 25 July 2006; Vol.
449, c. 766.] Lord Rooker
confirmed that on the same day in another place,
adding: I
refer to the opportunity, agreed through the usual channels, for an
amendability stage in parliamentary consideration of Northern Ireland
Orders in Council. We will also ensure that we legislate for Northern
Ireland by a Billprimary legislationwherever
appropriate.[Official Report, House of
Lords 25 July 2006; Vol. 684, c.
1740.] It is now 28 November,
and we have not seen devolved power restored to the Assembly, nor have
we
The
Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a certain
amount of freedom to discuss the method of making orders. I should be
grateful if he could now proceed to the specific
order.
Lembit
Öpik: If I may finish the sentence, I shall.
No measures have been quickly introduced to improve the quality of
scrutiny in Westminster and I have made that point clearly, as have
others. The reason why I mention that point is that the Government are
now actively turning their allies away from supporting their approach
towards direct rule. The Minister should understand that, by getting
the backs up of people who should be supporters of the
Governments efforts to legislate in Northern Ireland, the
Government are creating a rod for their own back, and that makes it
very difficult for us to be sympathetic to the stuff that they
propose. I turn to the
order itself, and I must place on record the concerns that I have on
its content. The Minister treats the Consumer Council as if it were
some kind of political partyas if it were partisan, with some
reason to have a go at the Government. Nothing could be further from
the truth. It is merely doing its job. Another group that is doing its
job, except that it is indeed a group of politicians, is the Programme
for Government Committee, which has also asked for deferral to the
Assembly of this important issue, and which has written to the
Secretary of State to request that. All that has fallen on deaf ears.
The Minister seems utterly determined to push something through even
though it is manifestly not in the interests of Northern Ireland rate
payers. In the same
context, we know that rate payers already pay for water and sewage
services through their rates. The debate is not on whether they should
have a free ride in Northern Ireland; the debate is on how the process
should be handled. It is grossly unfair to expect the people of
Northern Ireland to pay twice for the same services, but that is what
the Minister is in effect proposing. The people of Northern Ireland are
being asked, actually, to pay for the decades of under-investment that
happened under direct rule, although they are not responsible for the
diversion of funds and for the under-investment in
infrastructure. Though
investment in water and sewerage services is obviously crucial, no one
is happy with the tap tax, as it is being called. The Government are
proposing it, but have done nothing to address the manifest unfairness
that will lead to some of the most vulnerable in society being unable
afford a basic human necessity.
Ann
McKechin: Does the hon. Gentleman consider this system
particularly different from that which applies in Scotland, which is
administered by the Liberal Democrat-Labour
Executive?
Lembit
Öpik: I meant to comment on the hon. Ladys
naive optimism about her Government. We already know that the same
rules do not apply in the way that Northern Ireland is treated. The
hon. Member for Bolsover has naively fooled himself into thinking that
this is nothing to do with privatisation. The Government have
persistently ignored the interests of Northern Ireland. For example, on
student fees, having promised in a manifesto commitment not to
introduce student fees throughout Britain, they legislated to do
exactly the
opposite.
The
Chairman: Order. Can we get back to the
order?
Lembit
Öpik: With respect, Mr. Caton, I shall
explain why this is
relevant.
Mr.
Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Lembit
Öpik: No, there is not
time.
Mr.
Skinner: Well, you should keep you bloody trap
shut.
Lembit
Öpik: I am not sure that that is parliamentary
language. I will not be provoked into giving
way.
|