NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 6 November 2007 Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: Before we begin proceedings this morning, I want to deal with a matter relating to the debate that took place on 15 October 2007 on the Bill of Rights Forum. During the debate, Mr Attwood raised a point of order about a Member placing people’s names on the record. The Deputy Speaker ruled that that was in order and that the comments made were part and parcel of the cut and thrust of debate. I concur with the Deputy Speaker’s ruling on the issue. I note that Mr Attwood also raised the matter as a point of order yesterday and asked for a further ruling on the subject. The Deputy Speaker advised that I had already planned to make a statement to Members on the issue. I want to do that because the debate prompted letters from organisations outside the Assembly. I have replied to each of those letters, and I have placed copies of the original letters and my replies in the Assembly Library. I have also referred some of the procedural issues raised in the correspondence to the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures. Let me make it clear: I am satisfied that there was no breach of procedures during the debate. Members will know that, for the purposes of the law of defamation, absolute privilege attaches to the making of statements in proceedings of the Assembly. However, I think that with such protection comes responsibility. I encourage Members to remember their responsibilities when speaking in the Chamber. I will take no further points of order on the issue. Sixth Meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement regarding the sixth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the inland waterways sectoral format. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr Poots): The North/South Ministerial Council met in the inland waterways sectoral format in Ballyconnell, County Cavan, on Wednesday 17 October 2007. That was the first such meeting since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. The Irish Government were represented by Éamon Ó Cuív TD, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, who also chaired the meeting. Conor Murphy, the Minister for Regional Development, and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. Minister Ó Cuív and I began the day by meeting at the site of the new Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen. Later in the day, following that meeting, we visited Clones Canal Store and met with local community representatives. The meeting opened with a progress report from the chief executive officer of Waterways Ireland, Mr John Martin. His report focused on accommodation; restoration of the Royal Canal; a sponsorship programme and joint activities; moorings and boat registrations; and the Ulster Canal. We were satisfied to hear that, in general, the body has continued to discharge its remit of managing, maintaining, restoring and developing the navigations that are in its care, mainly for recreational use. Maintenance and capital-work programmes have been advanced significantly in the past five years. All corporate governance requirements have been met, day-to-day administration matters have been attended to, and a wide range of enquiries has been addressed. The Council noted the content of the 2002-07 progress report, the main points of which I will now summarise. Where accommodation is concerned, work has commenced on a new headquarters for Waterways Ireland in Enniskillen. The western regional office in Scariff, County Clare, opened in August 2006. Significant progress has been made on the restoration of the Royal Canal, and it will be opened fully to navigation from Dublin to the Shannon in 2009. Major international sporting events, such as the Waterways Ireland Classic Fishing Festival at Lough Erne, the Waterways Ireland World Water Ski Championship in Enniskillen, and the Triathlon Ireland in Athlone — the Tri-Athlone — were the joint activities that were supported by sponsorship programmes. Where moorings and boat registrations are concerned, 8,500 additional metres of mooring have been provided across the waterways, and boat registrations have more than doubled, increasing from 5,544 at the start of 2000 to 11,468 in 2007. The Council welcomed the decision that was made at the NSMC plenary meeting in July to proceed with the restoration of the Clones to Upper Lough Erne stretch of the Ulster Canal. The Council also agreed on how to proceed with that major infrastructural project. We agreed that Waterways Ireland should appoint a single entity consortium to design and construct the restoration of that section of the Ulster Canal. We noted that the Irish Exchequer will meet the full capital cost of the project, which is estimated at €35 million, or £23·8 million. On completion of the project, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government will meet the annual maintenance costs, which are in the order of €300,000, or £201,000 a year. Waterways Ireland will establish a project team for the day-to-day management of the undertaking. That team will report monthly to a monitoring committee that will be chaired jointly by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. We stressed that good local liaison will be crucial to the smooth running of the project. We also noted that Waterways Ireland will engage with all key stakeholders in implementing the project. We welcomed Waterways Ireland’s intention to establish a targeted marketing programme during construction in order to highlight the attractions and uniqueness of the Clones to Upper Lough Erne stretch of the Ulster Canal. Waterways Ireland presented its future plans to the Council for consideration. The main priorities for 2008 are to ensure that the navigations are open and that all existing facilities are operational during the main boating season, which lasts from April to October; to complete the major bridge-building programme and works to reconnect the Royal Canal to the Shannon; to commence design and land acquisition processes on the section of the Ulster Canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones; to promote the waterways and to extend and expand recreational use of the waterways in all their forms; and to apply the highest standards of operational management and business practice so that the use of the waterways is maintained and expanded in a sustainable manner. We discussed plans for Waterways Ireland for 2008 to 2010. We also approved its business plan for 2008 and its 2008-10 corporate plan, subject to budgetary considerations by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government. The Council also noted Waterways Ireland’s annual report and accounts for 2005, which were presented prior to their submission for laying before the Assembly and the Oireachtas. When the accounts have been printed, copies will be forwarded to both sponsoring Departments for them to arrange laying. The Council agreed to proposals for a compulsory purchase order and a number of disposals, all of which are in the South. The Council agreed to meet again in the inland waterways sectoral format in March 2008. The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr McElduff): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo agus guím rath agus bláth ar an dá rialtas agus ar na hAirí uile ar an ábhar seo. I welcome the statement and am delighted that the meeting of the Council in the inland waterways sectoral format on Wednesday 17 October took place. That timely meeting was the Council’s first in that format since the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly. The Minister referred extensively to the restoration of the Clones to Upper Lough Erne section of the Ulster Canal. What was missing from his statement, however, was a timeline for the successful completion of the project. I appreciate that it is an exciting and ambitious project, to which both Governments are contributing financially, but can the Minister indicate a date for its completion? What is not contained in a statement is sometimes as interesting as what is contained in it. My colleague Mr Willie Clarke has pressed the Minister on a number of occasions in questions for written answer to provide details on pay disparity between Waterways Ireland employees in the North and those in the South. I, too, ask the Minister to advise the Assembly on the pay awards, applied and consolidated, North and South, for administrative and professional technical staff in Waterways Ireland since the body’s inception. What is being done to resolve that issue? Mr Poots: The answer to the Member’s first question is fairly simple: 2014. We are looking at four years to complete the planning process and two years for development. It takes more time to complete planning and land acquisition, and so on, than it does construction. However, we are looking to have the canal fully operational by 2014. Pay disparity is a significant problem, but it relates not just to Waterways Ireland but to every cross-border body. I sought clarification on the matter. Waterways Ireland is one of the larger cross-border bodies. Its being based in County Fermanagh makes it a bigger issue, because more people from Northern Ireland are affected. At the outset, pay scales were broadly similar, but differentials in pay rises between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have led to a pay disparity between people who are doing the same job. I recognise that individuals feel that they are being unfairly treated as a result of that disparity, and we have asked the Department of Finance and Personnel to consult with the Department of Finance in the Republic of Ireland on the issue. I sound a note of caution, however, because, should we rectify that pay disparity, we then create a pay disparity between employees of North/South bodies and the rest of the Civil Service. Therefore, it is a very difficult and complicated issue to resolve. Nonetheless, I understand the anxieties of the individuals involved. Mr McCausland: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Waterways are important to the development of tourism in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is, therefore, important that we set out a good programme for the future and that Waterways Ireland be fit for purpose. 10.45 am In that context, I will mention the recent case in which a former director of corporate services in Waterways Ireland was awarded €75,000 after having been sacked from that organisation — I understand that he has now returned to the Department. He was sacked after he had made allegations and complaints about the organisation’s recruitment practices. Was the matter raised during discussions, and what action will be taken to address the issue? It is clear that there are problems in the organisation. I notice that no border is being shown on the map of the island that appears on the cross-border body’s website. The map shows waterways but no border between the countries. I ask that Waterways Ireland reinstate the border. Mr Poots: I will look into the matter. The Member’s first point related to an individual, and I understand that there is an ongoing case involved. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter in the House until the case is finalised. Mr K Robinson: I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for bringing it to the House today. There are a couple of issues. First, Mr McCausland has mentioned one aspect of Southern aggression in which the border has disappeared: I am worried about a more active type of Southern aggression, which takes the form of the zebra mussel. Was that problem discussed with Southern representatives during the deliberations? What steps are being taking to halt that form of aggression, which has now spread into the Lough Neagh system? I would like to see Waterways Ireland pushing for more recognition of the significant canal system that already exists in the east of the Province: I am thinking about the Newry Canal, the Lagan navigation system, and improvements to the River Bann as far as Coleraine. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to ensure that there is balance in the Waterways Ireland forward programme so that those areas are covered. One can clearly see the potential for tourism there, and that must be examined. I can help the Minister with another difficulty by saying that the Lagan Canal used to run close to the proposed Maze development site. Perhaps the introduction of a spur into the proposed national stadium site would reduce the cost of the road and rail network links. Mr Speaker: Order. Does the Member have a question? Mr K Robinson: Yes. I have already asked a question about the River Bann and the eastern waterways. I ask the Minister to look seriously at the zebra mussel problem because it is affecting the boating fraternity and the infrastructure around Lough Neagh. Mr Poots: The invasion of zebra mussels was not discussed during the meeting. However, there has been a publicity campaign on the issue. Boats are the main factor in the spread of zebra mussels, and the Department has been advising boat owners on how to reduce the problem through good boat management. I trust that they will act responsibly and that they will ensure that the problem is minimised as far as possible. Waterways Ireland will be happy to service all new canals. Responsibility for the development of canals rests with the Governments, whether it is that of the Republic of Ireland in the case of the Royal Canal, or this Administration as regards canals in our jurisdiction. I would love to be in a position to develop our canal infrastructure because it would provide great opportunities for tourism and economic development. Agreeing to open the new 12 km stretch of the Ulster Canal from Enniskillen to Clones, 60% of which is in Northern Ireland and 100% of which is being paid for by the Republic of Ireland Government, is good news for us. I trust that the Republic of Ireland will take it that step further and bring it from Clones up to Caledon, and that we can then take it from Caledon right down to Lough Neagh, and open it up onwards from Lough Neagh to Belfast, Coleraine and Newry, and reinstate the canal infrastructure. This is going to be a very long-term project; it will involve central Government, local government and the private sector, along with the Heritage Lottery Fund. We have to look at creating a cocktail of funders to make it happen, and I am very keen to see it happen. On a side note, Mr Speaker, I see that we have a lot of members of the Indian community with us today. As Culture Minister, I should like to make them very welcome. This is a very special week, with the celebration of Diwali, the festival of lights. Mr P Ramsey: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the clear intent of Waterways Ireland to continue on in full co-operation. Obviously, the Minister is intent on that as well. I note that Nelson has just left the Chamber. I wonder whether, given his call for the border to be reintroduced, he would also call for the Republic of Ireland’s money to be kept at the border. That is another story. Can the Minister outline the capital investment by the Irish Government and our own Government since 1998, and the serious economic, social and environmental impact that those investments have had on Waterways Ireland? Also, the Minister will be aware that we had a good, healthy discussion yesterday about fishing and the Fisheries Conservancy Board. I note that there is an intention to promote the waterways of Ireland as a key tourism product. What type of activity, outside of fishing, does the Minister intend to promote to bring greater use and activity to the rivers and waterways? Mr Poots: There has been limited investment by the Northern Ireland Government since 1998. However, a lot of work has been done in opening up access to the waterways. There have been major improvements to towpaths in a whole range of areas — between Portadown and Newry, for example. The towpath between Belfast and Lisburn, among others, has seen considerable improvement. There has also been maintenance work on the Bann navigation and other navigations across Northern Ireland. There have been a range of capital investments, but nothing to compare with what the Republic of Ireland has invested in the Royal Canal, for example. That Administration has carried out major investments. Opportunities on the waterways other than angling mainly relate to boating — barges, powerboats and canoeing. A lot of the water activities relate to boating and those types of occupations. Boating is hugely popular. There are around 13,000 registrations across Ireland, and over 4,000 in Northern Ireland, so there are a very significant number of boats using our waterways. This is a huge opportunity for tourism and to bring people in. Anyone who has tried to hire a boat will know all about the costs that are involved, but it is something that people enjoy participating in, and there are a lot of opportunities there. Mr McCarthy: I welcome the statement. It is partnership working across the island, and that has to be welcomed. As the Minister said, it should contribute enormously to tourism. It is a start on a shared future across this island; perhaps they are making more progress on the inland waterways than we are in Northern Ireland in rolling out our shared future. However, that may come in the near future, and let us hope that it does. I also pay tribute to the Southern Irish taxpayers, who are contributing around £23 million to the project, and who will contribute half of the maintenance costs in the coming years. The Minister’s statement shows that we have a very good deal. I have really no question to ask, other than to support what has been said — Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have said continually to all sides of the House that when a Minister makes a statement, we certainly do not need statements from Members — I expect questions. Lord Browne: I thank the Minister for his statement. I particularly welcome the decision to proceed with the restoration of the Clones to Upper Lough Erne stretch of the Ulster Canal, as that will help the economic development of that area. However, I am sure that the Minister is aware that Belfast City Council, Lisburn City Council and Castlereagh Borough Council came together over two years ago to initiate plans for the reopening of the Lagan Canal to link Belfast to Lough Neagh. This, like the Clones and Upper Lough Erne scheme, would bring many economic advantages, including tourism and sport, to the area. Has the Minister any plans to advance that worthwhile project in conjunction with those three councils? Mr Poots: I can add Craigavon Borough Council to that list of councils. It will kick in around the Lough Neagh and Aghagallon area. Dungannon and South Tyrone does not quite stretch to the Lagan navigation just yet, Lord Morrow, but we look after the Ulster Canal there. The Lagan Canal Restoration Trust has been established. It is funded by the four local authorities and the Environment and Heritage Service, and it will explore the scope for delivering the 26-mile project. As successor in title to the former Lagan Navigation Company, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure owns the residual property rights remaining in Government ownership — primarily the locks and towpath on the lower Lagan. The new body will have the task of identifying the cost and the potential sources of income for the delivery of such navigation. Belfast City Council can receive around £1 million from Ulster Garden Villages for the opening of the first lock at Stranmillis, and I trust that that will proceed. It is another important step in the reopening of our canal navigation. When the Island Centre in Lisburn was opened by Lisburn City Council, one of the locks was reopened. There is the opportunity for further openings with engagement from the private sector through developer gain and funding from other sources — as I indicated earlier — such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, local authorities and my Department. I trust that the Lagan navigation can continue once Belfast City Council commences its work at Stranmillis, and that that navigation can be opened up to the wider public. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. The headquarters of Waterways Ireland is currently being built in Enniskillen, and it will be vital to the economy of Enniskillen and the wider area. I welcome that, and I urge the Minister to press for its completion as soon as possible, as it has been quite a long time in the making. I have a question about the jetties and moorings, which have already been mentioned. Farmers who have land along Lough Erne, and others, are asking questions about a new cost for jetties. Is Waterways Ireland creating a new annual cost for mooring boats or establishing jetties, as compared to those who controlled the lakes previously? I assure the Member opposite that there are gates on Lough Erne, but it is very difficult to define where the border is. 11.00 am Mr Poots: Obviously, we want to establish more jetties and moorings in order to give boat users greater land accessibility. If the Member was attempting to ascertain whether the building of such facilities would mean an additional cost to farmers, I can tell him that they would be funded by the public sector, not the private sector. Lord Morrow: I was interested to hear the Minister speak about Waterways Ireland. As he considers his reply to Mr McCausland’s request to have the border shown on the map on the Waterways Ireland website — although I suspect that that will not stop water flowing either north or south of the border — will he also consider the political connotations? The name of that body is off-putting and threatening to many unionists. Therefore, will the Minister consider renaming the whole project in order to make it more user-friendly to unionists? Some Members: Hear, hear. Lord Morrow: The Minister referred to the fishing festival on Lough Erne, which is a major international event that is supported across Europe and further afield. How does the Minister envisage Waterways Ireland’s enhancing the annual Classic Fishing Festival? Mr Poots: We will consider all those matters. In the past, we have supported the Classic Fishing Festival. There is a budget — albeit relatively small in real terms — to support such events, and grant aid is based on those events’ quality. To date, that fishing festival has been of sufficient quality, and I expect it to grow in stature rather than diminish. Mr Dallat: Without political connotations, such as those to which Lord Morrow referred, I welcome the reopening of part of the Ulster Canal and the Minister’s prediction that it will be fully opened by 2014. That is excellent news and sends out a strong signal to long-term investors to begin to create the required infrastructure. Will the Minister assure Members that, as far as he can, he will cut red tape in order to ensure that that infrastructure is put in place — particularly on the Lower Bann route, comprising Coleraine, Portglenone, Antrim and Kilrea — and that the canal will be ready and up and running in 2014? Mr Poots: The 2014 target date for opening that section of the Ulster Canal is realistic. Thereafter, I hope that further work will be carried out on canals, that this is the beginning of a process and not the end, and that we will be able to commit more resources to the reopening of canals. There are substantial tourism and economic-development benefits to be derived from such projects. The Member knows well that, in East Londonderry, the Lower Bann navigation is a superb stretch of water that, even now, is heavily used for sporting and recreational purposes. That should be encouraged, and we will seek to do so. I am happy to work with all Members in order to deliver that. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. Following on from Mr Morrow’s question, what progress has been made in attracting flagship angling events to the canal infrastructure? Does the Minister agree that angling forms an important part of the tourism package? Mr Poots: I have little to add to the response that I gave to Lord Morrow’s question. Good water quality is essential for angling and is the responsibility of the Environment and Heritage Service. Investigating fish kills is the responsibility of the Fisheries Conservancy Board. Water quality has been improving and will continue to improve. We must examine ways to reintroduce the levels of fish stocks in our great rivers that we had in the past. For example, the River Lagan was extremely rich in salmon before the industrial revolution drove them from the river. Now, salmon are returning to the River Lagan, but that is only one stretch of water. We must improve water quality and spawning beds to increase the population of salmon and other species, and we must enhance the quality of rivers for angling. People do not recognise the opportunities that angling creates or how tourism can benefit. Lough Erne, in particular, used to be popular with German anglers, but its popularity has diminished greatly in recent years. Such opportunities must be recreated, and new ones must be sought. Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: Members should note that as no amendments have been tabled to the Bill, there will be no opportunity for debate this morning, although a further opportunity for debate will occur during the Final Stage of the Bill. As no amendments have been tabled, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the two clauses for the Question on stand part, followed by the Question on the long title. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Long title agreed to. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Independent Water Review Panel’s Strand-One Report Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr Cobain): I beg to move That this Assembly notes the publication of the Independent Water Review Panel’s Strand One Report. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the review team, headed by Paddy Hillyard, for its hard work in introducing strand one of the review in a very tight time frame. The Committee looks forward to receiving the completed report in December. It would be remiss of me, as Chairperson of the Committee, not to acknowledge the Committee’s appreciation of the long hours worked and help provided by its staff, and I give special thanks to the Committee Clerk. The Committee for Regional Development has brought the motion to the Assembly because the review of water and sewerage services is probably one of the most significant challenges facing the Assembly. What we, as elected representatives, decide over the coming months will have long-term consequences for every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. The previous Administration were criticised for — among other things — lack of transparency, failure to consider the full costs and alternative policy options, and undue haste in developing and implementing water reforms. The danger is that, with the best of intentions, but because of budgetary and other pressures, we may make the same mistakes. Today’s debate is an opportunity to consider and explore the wide-ranging findings and recommendations in the review panel’s strand-one report. It is an opportunity to open up to wider debate some of the important issues touched on in that report. I want to make it clear from the outset that the Committee for Regional Development has had many constructive engagements with the Minister for Regional Development regarding strand one of the review, and we look forward to more engagement as strand two progresses. I appeal to all Members to remember that the people of Northern Ireland will not thank us for using today’s debate simply as an opportunity to score points. The issue is too important and should be treated as such. It is important to clarify some misunderstandings of the Committee’s initial response to the report. As a Committee, we have not, at any time, endorsed the report. We have welcomed it in the most general terms as an important early first step in finding a solution to this complex and challenging question. The Committee believes that that solution must both protect the most vulnerable in society from poverty and hardship, and ensure that all households and enterprises in Northern Ireland have clean, safe and reliable drinking water and sewerage services. Those services must be provided in an efficient, sustainable, fair and transparent manner. That is a tall order by anyone’s reckoning. I want to address a number of assumptions that were made in the report. First, the Committee agreed that a figure reflecting the historical cost contributions paid by customers and contained in the regional rates should be taken out and ring-fenced, and, if technically possible, allocated to Northern Ireland Water (NIW). The figure of £109 million per annum was a conservative estimate. There are other, less conservative ways to calculate the historical cost contributions made by the ratepayer to the costs of water and sewerage. For example, taking the proportion of the regional rate identified as a contribution to the cost of water and sewerage services in 1998, and uplifting that proportion to today’s prices, yields a figure higher than the £109 million identified in the report. The Committee recognises that ring-fencing a higher proportion of the regional rate for water and sewerage services would have consequences for the level of expenditure available for other public services. However, let us have that debate. It remains an issue worthy of discussion as strand two of the review progresses. The method of assessment for charging — capital values — is an area in which the Committee has concerns. This relates to the issue of asset-rich but cash-poor individuals. In particular, the Committee has concerns about the ability of many pensioners living on fixed incomes in family homes to pay this tax. There are many views on the use of capital values as a proxy for the ability to pay. I suspect that many Members will have points to make regarding that. Those views were reflected in the Committee’s discussions regarding the recommendation. However, the Committee will reserve its opinion on the use of capital values as a charging base until December, when the work on the affordability tariffs is complete. It is worth pointing out that the Minister for Regional Development, in his statement to the House on 22 October, stated that the Executive also reserved their final decision on the way in which payments for service should be made until the panel completed its strand-two report. Much has been made of the issue of billing and the importance of having a single entity collecting both rates and water tax. The review panel recommends, in paragraph 2·36 of its report, that: “householders’ payments should be clearly and separately identified on their rates bill … from 2009/10 householders’ payments should be collected through the same billing and collection system as the rates: there should not be a separate system”. Paragraph 7·1 of the report states that those recommendations, among others: “will make it possible to release further substantial savings in relation to billing, collection and customer service.” That is fine in theory, but herein lies one of the many problems. The report contains no financial modelling of the full costs of varying, or opting out of, if necessary, the Crystal Alliance contract, or, indeed, any costs in relation to the feasibility of whether Land and Property Services could actually perform that task. The Committee is clearly of the view that more evidence is required. That evidence should include whether Land and Property Services could provide the billing and collection service for water and sewerage services more efficiently than, and at least as effectively as, the existing Crystal Alliance arrangements. Failure to provide that assurance will clearly increase costs to the consumer. The Committee has also been considering the recommendations on how billing will impact on the approximately 100,000 households with septic tanks, who are not connected to the sewerage system, and on those people currently billed on a non-domestic basis but with a domestic water allowance. In that respect, the report lacks clarity. One of the main observations of the review panel in its efforts to identify lessons for the future was a failure to fully consider and evaluate potential costs and policy alternatives in advance. 11.15 am I was pleased to hear, in the Minister’s statement to the House on 22 October, that the Committee is not alone in its concerns about the cost of billing and collection recommendations. The Minister indicated that the Executive also considered necessary further analysis by the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel to determine how single billing, which identifies water and sewerage charges separately, might be arranged and to assess the implications for existing billing arrangements and contracts. One of the most important issues in respect of future costs to the consumer is Northern Ireland Water’s ability to reach its efficiency targets. The strand-one report recommends that Northern Ireland Water’s operational efficiency targets should be raised from 22% to 40% by the end of 2009-10, and the report leaves the capital expenditure efficiency target for the regulator to review. The Committee supports the principle that the interests of water and sewerage customers will be best served by making Northern Ireland Water as efficient as possible, as quickly as possible. However, the Committee heard a variety of views on the achievability of increased efficiency targets within the 2009-10 time frame. The Committee hopes that the 40% efficiency target is achievable. However, a clear understanding of the implications for customers of achieving that target is required, particularly with respect to service level; planned investment; water and waste water quality; the implications of failure to achieve the target for charges to customers; and the cost to the departmental budget. In the first instance, the Committee wants to see consideration of those issues in the context of a range of efficiency targets, from the current 22% to the recommended 40%, and it has decided that it is more appropriate to await relevant information. Another recommendation is that the cost of road drainage, borne at present by Northern Ireland Water, should be transferred to the budget of the Department for Regional Development. The panel’s report identifies a sum of £48 million for that cost. The Committee takes the view that it would not be prudent to endorse any recommendation that may place additional unquantified pressures on the departmental budget. Should the Executive decide to accept such recommendations, the necessary additional budgetary cover should be agreed at Executive level. The Committee would be particularly concerned if there were any attempt to reduce the roads maintenance budget, which, at present, is underfunded by 40%, to facilitate that cost, particularly as the acting chief executive of the Roads Service has, in the ‘Road Service Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007’, highlighted the increased risk of skidding that arises from failure to make adequate provision for the roads maintenance budget. I turn to, arguably, the most important issue, and one that I have already touched on briefly, namely water poverty and the affordability tariff. That work will be dealt with in strand two of the review, but it is important for the Committee to put down a marker at this stage on its concerns. Water poverty and the affordability tariff had been a key element in the Committee’s consideration of the review of water and sewerage since its earliest meeting in May. The Committee welcomes the panel’s comments on affordability tariffs and the ongoing work on water poverty to enhance the affordability tariff. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to chapter 9 of the panel’s strand-one report. The panel reported that, without the affordability tariff, almost 50% of households would experience water poverty. About 40% of those households were occupied by pensioners or couples with children. With the existing affordability tariff, the report estimated that 11% of households would still be in water poverty, and that the affordability tariff would take those eligible for the tariff out of water poverty. That tells us that the existing affordability tariff, if it were taken up by those who are eligible for it — and that is a big “if” — is not sufficiently inclusive to embrace all those who will face water poverty as a result of the water and sewerage tax. It is the view of the Committee that much more work must be done on enhanced affordability arrangements — Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Before I call Mr Wells, I should tell the House that the Minister is on his way to the Chamber. He has been caught in traffic and he is well aware of the debate. Mr Wells: It is extremely unfortunate that the Minister is not present. He has already missed the contribution of the Chairman of the Regional Development Committee. It now looks as though he will miss the contribution of the Deputy Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, which, to my mind, is particularly significant. [Laughter.] This issue dominated the election of May 2007 and has generated vast numbers of correspondence, emails and phone calls. The Minister cannot even organise his diary to ensure that he is in the Chamber to listen to the debate on this important issue. We will ask him for a good excuse when he comes to the House, dishevelled, no doubt, in around 30 minutes’ time. If I were asked to summarise the review report, I would say that much has been achieved but there is a great deal more to be done. The achievements are notable and are in line with the DUP’s manifesto. It has been established that homeowners will not be asked to pay twice for the provision of water in Northern Ireland. That is a major achievement of the review, and it is one for which my party and others have pressed for many months. As a result of effective analysis of the statistics, the review panel has been able to establish that £109 million already being paid through the rates should have been going towards the payment for water provision. The link was broken in 1998; however, the review panel has been able to calculate the amount that should have been included for water provision retrospectively. That works out at approximately £160 per household per year, which has been hypothecated and will be removed from any future charge for water provision. That is good news. Another aspect of the review panel’s work that will reduce bills is the transfer of £25 million for the provision of road drainage from Northern Ireland Water back into the Roads Service budget. That is to be welcomed, but there may be an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul, because transferring that money back to Roads Service may cause a reduction in roads maintenance. Therefore, we must watch what happens to that £25 million carefully. There has also been an increase in developer charging. Currently, for house builders, there is a subsidy for linking houses into the water and sewerage systems. However, from now on, they will pay a realistic amount. I realise that that may have a knock-on effect for affordable and social housing, and perhaps mitigating factors could be instigated to prevent that happening. However, if a man is building a house for which he will be charging £300,000, he should be charged a realistic amount for linking that house to the water and sewerage systems. The review panel has stated that greater efficiency savings will be required from Northern Ireland Water. However, the targets in the report are extremely challenging, and I am not certain that Northern Ireland Water will be able to achieve them in the time given. I will return to that point. There are still issues outstanding, and the affordability tariff is one issue on which Members will dwell this morning and this afternoon. Acceptability of the proposed water charges by the general community will stand or fall on whether the affordability tariff is fair and is seen to be fair. There must not be a situation in which a pensioner living alone in a large family home and using a tiny amount of water each week is paying three or four times more than the household down the road in which six children are using huge volumes of water. Capital valuation is not the way to determine whether a person can pay for water, and the review panel will have a very difficult task in squaring that circle and in bringing about a sense of fairness. The DUP is extremely keen to give pensioners, widows, or people who live alone the option of using water meters: that would solve the problem. Water metering is fair; it simply taxes people on the basis of the amount of water they use, and it promotes the conservation of water. If the Minister bothers to turn up, I would like him to tell me whether the proposals, as they stand, have been tested against the EU Water Framework Directive, which demands that Governments carry out actions to conserve water. However, the question is academic because the Minister is somewhere between here and Camlough, and has not turned up to answer our questions, which is a disgrace. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister has been in touch. He had a previous engagement and is running late as he is stuck in traffic, but he will be here shortly to answer MLA Wells’s points. Sinn Féin has been consistent in its opposition of the imposition of water charges, which it considers to be a regressive form of taxation that would have the greatest impact on low-income families, single parents, the elderly, farmers and small businesses. Since the formation of the Executive in May, my party has committed itself to undo any plans for the privatisation of water and sewerage services. Our focus has been to stop the introduction of water tax, because we believe that the initial consultation process was deeply flawed and that the models proposed were limited and were based on a predetermined outcome. My party is determined to tackle what most people consider to be the injustice of having to pay twice for something — double taxation for water and sewerage services. It is also wrong that the people of the North should be penalised unfairly and made to pay for an investment that successive British Governments failed to deliver. For generations, people here have been paying for water through their rates, yet that investment has not resulted in the maintenance and the upgrading of the water and sewerage system to European and international standards. The independent review on water charges carried out by Professor Paddy Hillyard marks the end of British Government proposals for water charges. People are looking to the Executive for a fair deal and for a root-and-branch review of the direct rule proposals. I welcome the approach that has been adopted by the Regional Development Minister, Conor Murphy, who proposed the fundamental review. I also congratulate Professor Hillyard and his team for the work that they have done on the project and the staff of the Department for Regional Development. The Hillyard report recommends that British Government plans for water charges should be scrapped. Sinn Féin endorses that position, as it has always argued that no one should have to pay twice for water. Indeed, we fought the election on that commitment, on which this report delivers. People will pay for water within their rates bill, as was the case in the past. The improvement is that there will be a clear, separate line on the rates bill, and people will be able to see the amount that they will be paying. It will also mean that people who are eligible for relief under the rating system will be eligible for relief for water charges. People on low incomes will benefit significantly as a result of the review. Water charging will be open and transparent. There is a recommendation for further targeted assistance; for example, for people who are asset rich but cash poor. The affordability tariff will undergo further work in strand two of the review. Although metering has merit, it would be costly and would push up the cost to the individual. Some people believe that metering is a panacea, and that its introduction will mean that water will be cheaper. That is not the case. Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way? Mr W Clarke: I do not have much time. Mr Wells: The Member will get an extra minute. Mr W Clarke: I doubt it. [Laughter.] People believe that metering is a panacea, which it is not. Ultimately, water and sewerage infrastructure must be paid for. If everyone used meters, tariffs would continually rise in order to pay for infrastructure. Therefore, metering is a red herring. I welcome the fact that the Regional Development Minister has ruled out privatisation, and I fully agree with his assessment that imposing water charges was an attempt by the British Government to provide an incentive to sell off water services. The review’s recommendations include a £160 reduction in the rates element of the combined bill to meet the cost of water in 2008. The result will be that people will pay less for water and rates than the amount forecast. The second part of the review will consider the overall governance, accountability, management and status of the water company. In that context, the Executive have considered strand one of the report and have agreed a way forward that presents a much fairer deal and that will be an important step towards ensuring that the people of the Six Counties are not taxed unfairly for water. Mr Dallat: I also want to add my thanks to the Committee staff and, in particular, the groups who gave evidence. I recall with great clarity those who represented people on low incomes and those at the margins of society. The Consumer Council also deserves particular thanks for its work. It is regrettable that the Minister is not present, because I would have liked to assure him that any stories that he may have heard about the report’s being put together with great enthusiasm have been highly exaggerated and are, perhaps, even inaccurate. Indeed, as the Chairman of the Committee will be aware, the Committee was recalled to discuss certain serious issues further because it could not reach agreement on them. The Minister will be aware that the SDLP was the only party that met the review panel. From that point of view, we are pleased that our concerns are featured in the report. 11.30 am However, given that so many imponderables are outstanding, it would be impossible to begin to claim a victory for common sense. To date, it is not known how far down the river the direct rule Ministers went in signing up — legally — to the contract with Crystal Alliance. That was disgraceful and should never have happened. I urge the Minister to end that contract and to confirm that there will be no separate water charges. I hope that those matters are realised sooner rather than later. Again, it is recognised that people are already paying for water and that a notional figure is accepted. However, is that figure accurate? We know that for several successive years, there was a hike in the regional rate. The reason given for that was the cost of investing in water services. In that case, it must surely and logically follow that if the bulk of the increase in the regional rate were spent on infrastructure and water, the charge of £160 per annum would increase. The SDLP has always said that if we are not to have water bills, the cost of metering would be prohibitive and quite unnecessary. I hope that I am correct in that assumption. We welcome the fact that there is now recognition that water consumers should never have had to pay for the dispersal of surface water, a matter to which the Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development has already referred. We hope sincerely that we do not play a game of draughts in which that cost has simply been moved to the rates section of the bill, leaving the consumer no better off. There is, of course, the review of public administration to deal with, and that is another imponderable. We have dealt with only strand one of the Independent Water Review Panel’s report. It would be unwise to declare any opinion on that until we know the outcome of strand two. However, we can assist the Minister by repeating our view that there should be no separate bill for water and sewerage services. We also believe that there must be protection against water poverty, whether in the form of charges or metering. However, metering would merely restrict the use of water by those who can least afford it. We can also tell the Minister that the notion of a shareholders’ dividend is a feature that is designed for privatisation and that we do not need it, given that there is an understanding that privatisation is out of the window for all time. I hope that I am correct in saying that. Finally, and most importantly, the savings that the review panel suggested would be achieved are not unreasonable, given that the original target that was set out for the company could hardly be described as a target at all. With a great deal of goodwill and an acceptance that the decisions that were taken in our name in the past — under direct rule — were wrong, or, dare I say it, even wicked, we can move on and provide a water service that is of the highest standard, at a cost that should vary little from that which is being charged presently. That is the challenge that the Minister must meet. He will not find the SDLP wanting in its determination to ensure that that challenge is met. I hope that the Minister has more success with water than he is having with traffic management this morning. Mr Speaker: Before I call Mrs Long to speak, I remind Members to switch off their mobile phones. They are causing problems for the audio system in the Chamber. Mrs Long: I apologise to the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development and to Mr Wells for missing part of both their speeches. However, what I heard of Mr Wells’s contribution, I found very interesting, and, no doubt, I will refer to it at some point. Water is a valuable and expensive commodity. Even here, where there seems to be an overproliferation of it at times, we should not lose sight of the fact that the provision of potable water is an expensive business. The biggest public-health investment that we as a society can make is in water and sanitation, rather than in hospitals. The greatest change in mortality rates over the past few centuries is due to the delivery of good sanitation and clean water. We must be realistic and accept that the debate is about how we pay for water; it is not about whether we pay. It is important that, in the context of what has already been produced, we focus on three key interlinked issues: fairness, affordability, and sustainability. We must address them comprehensively and give them good consideration. On reading the report, my concern is that I am not convinced that each of those issues has been fully addressed. First, where fairness is concerned, most people are uncomfortable with the notion of paying an additional water charge while their rates remain unaffected. That was the original direct rule proposal. However, if people have to pay a separate charge, they would be relatively more comfortable paying for what they use, rather than simply paying for services that are based on the value of their houses. When I have discussed water charges with members of the public, I have noticed very little resistance to the notion that people should pay for what they use. The fundamental resistance seems to be to the introduction of any kind of flat-rate charge based on the capital value of property. People believe such charges to be punitive and are much happier with the idea of paying for the water that they use — they believe that to be fairer. However, that approach obviously raises a more complex argument because of the huge infrastructural costs that would be involved. Nevertheless, I believe that most people are comfortable with the principle of paying for what they use. Fairness is also an issue in relation to basing charges on the capital value of property, and, therefore, it cannot be detached from the general discussions on the rating system. A single person living in a particular property will end up paying the same in water charges as a large number of people living in the same size of property. That is inherently unfair and runs contrary to people’s expectations. Although such a system clearly badly affects pensioners, they are not the only people who will be affected — it will also impact on single working adults and young people, who will also find that they are paying the same amount for water as larger families. Single people are annoyed that they have to pay the same rates as larger families, even though they feel that they do not make the same demands on services. That will continue to be an issue with water charges. I accept that these proposals have attempted to address the issue of paying twice for water. However, there has been a significant escalation in our rates bills in recent years, so when people compare what they were paying three or four years ago with what they are going to be paying under any new system, they will find that they will be paying more. There is no point in our trying to disguise or hide that fact. The Sinn Féin Member Willie Clarke suggested that people will now find that they will be paying less than was forecast — that argument is unsustainable, because if we are determined to invest more in water services, there will be a requirement on people to pay more. We must be honest and open with people about the costs involved, not just in the short term but in the long term. That leads me on to affordability. Affordability is not just an issue of the level at which the charges are introduced; the long-term cost of the charges is important. If, over time, rates bills continue to escalate in the background, through continued hikes in the regional rate and district rate and rises in water charges, the proposals will not necessarily be affordable in the long term. We must have a strategy, and I will address that further in my comments on sustainability. This matter also concerns those who are asset rich but cash poor. We are very aware of people who have worked their whole lives, are now on fixed incomes, and live in rather modest properties but find that, due to the property boom, their houses have been valued at quite a high level. One may have a good property, but one cannot take a brick out of the wall to pay the water bill. We must be realistic about that. If the charges are to be sustainable, we must be realistic about conservation. We need a proper, sustainable water policy that deals with, for example, grey-water recycling and limits the usage of potable water in properties to a minimum. If we can develop a sustainable water policy within which the context of charging can be considered, it is more likely that we will have sustainable, affordable and fair charging down the line. Mr Moutray: When reflecting on the introduction of water charges, and, in particular, the Independent Review Panel’s strand-one report, it must be said that, without doubt, progress has been made towards achieving an improved water and sewerage service for the people of Northern Ireland. At this point, it is necessary to note publicly that advances have been made on two particular issues — there will be no payment until 2009, and consumers will not have to pay twice for water services. A recent publication, ‘Water Matters: Have Your Say!’, details the implications of having a water supply that is unclean and unfit for use. We know that Northern Ireland is not immune to such problems, so it is essential that this country has in place a strong and robust water and sewerage system that we, and future generations, can enjoy. As the population increases, further demands will be made on water supplies, so it is essential to plan for the future. In doing so, we must take practical action to ensure that our entire water infrastructure is in a healthy state. We, as an Assembly, must endeavour to align ourselves with the rest of the UK with regard to quality and usage of water, to reduce our carbon footprint and to develop sustainable ways to deliver clean water and dispose of sewage. However, my party is concerned about two particular aspects, the first of which is the property values option in which domestic users are required to pay an amount based on the capital value of their property. My party feels that that is not an accurate measure. Members know how much water would be used by a person living alone in a relatively large house in comparison with a family living in a similar-sized dwelling. Therefore, how can such a measure be justified? My colleagues and I call on the Minister to reassess the charging mechanism and protect the vulnerable in society, particularly elderly people who may not be able to pay such high charges for water. The implementation of such a charging mechanism would be contrary to the Minister’s statement to the House on 22 October 2007 in which he said that: “there will be robust arrangements to protect the vulnerable in society from hardship and water poverty.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 9, p418, col 1]. I call on the Minister to ensure that his words have substance and not just spin. Such a charging mechanism would cause major distress to the vulnerable in society and particularly to those who are asset rich but income poor. Secondly, the report suggests that domestic metering should be discontinued; in essence, that metering would be prohibited. My party believes that because there is broad public interest in volumetric measuring, some consideration must be given to that method. I recognise the significant cost of the mechanism, but metering would benefit many people, such as elderly persons, particularly if they believe that they are not using large volumes of water. It is important to protect the vulnerable in society, particularly elderly people, who would be susceptible to extortionate rates and water poverty owing to their inability to pay. In light of that, the Minister must take water usage into consideration. Furthermore, the people of Northern Ireland still have misconceptions, having neither been consulted on nor informed about the decision that water services would no longer be funded out of the regional rate. People assumed reasonably that they were paying for the service through the rates when it was announced in 2004 that there would be a direct charge. That gave rise to the suggestion that users were being asked to pay twice for the same assets and services, but people could not comprehend why, in that case, the rates bills had not been reduced correspondingly. We must learn from that mistake. Decisions made by the Assembly on water rates and the appropriate charging mechanisms must be made public. I call on the Assembly to consider the issues raised in the debate and to ensure that the vulnerable in society are not susceptible to water poverty as a result of the use of inappropriate charging mechanisms. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I would not normally speak on an issue such as this, but it is important for my constituency, and, in particular, for towns such as Enniskillen. It has been said that efforts are being made to end double taxation, and that people are pleased that a new approach is being taken. The “Durkan tax” was also mentioned, and it is important to note that the link between the rates and water charges that was created by Mark Durkan and David Trimble, though broken, has been re-established, which is all to the good. Mr Cobain: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Member explain to the House who else was in the Executive at that particular time? Mr Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of order. Mr McHugh: That is interesting: perhaps I drew that particular remark from the Member. My constituency, and the town of Enniskillen in particular, has paid dearly for historical underfunding and the underdevelopment of infrastructure. There is too much pressure on the sewerage system, and, partly because of Planning Policy Statement 14, developers have been allowed to go flat out and build any number of houses in towns and villages. For example, in at least two villages, the building of more than 200 new houses is proposed in the next couple of years, but there is no capacity for dealing with sewage. 11.45 am Mrs Long: Does the Member accept that the cost of providing sewerage services to individual houses in the countryside, and the potential environmental consequences of not doing so, are much more significant than those of connecting to existing services in the city and upgrading those services? Mr McHugh: I disagree — that has not been proven to be the case. There are new methods of dealing with sewage in the countryside that are less dangerous to the environment. In Enniskillen, raw sewage can run into Lough Erne when there has been any degree of rainwater over a weekend. That happens in Enniskillen and other areas, year in, year out. Sometimes, departmental breaks have more impact than anything that happens in the countryside. I take Mrs Long’s point about the overall way forward for planning. However, overall planning does not currently consider the towns to which people are being pushed. The area plan has not been adhered to in any part of the North, and that has implications. Serious efforts must be made to advance the affordability issue. Older people who live in large houses have to pay similar tariffs to others who pay a large amount of money each year. In England, some vulnerable people paid £360 a year, but paid £5 a week after a meter was installed. That is an example of the difference that metering can make, and yesterday I asked the Minister for Regional Development to give further consideration to water metering. Metering must be considered, although I am aware of the infrastructural difficulties. Farmers know what it is like to have meters, and I know what it is like to pay water charges on a cubic-metre basis. Under that system, we try to save water. However, when water is charged at a flat rate, there is no incentive from an environmental point of view to save water, to stop the waste of running water, or to stop watering gardens — on which there is a ban for most of the year in England. We wash cars here several times a week. Mr Elliott: Will the Member give way? Mr McHugh: I do not have enough time. Recycling has already been mentioned, and global warming must also be taken into account. Water, as a resource, will be seen in the future as oil is today. Food, quality of water and rising temperatures as a result of global warming will mean that issues that relate to water will have to be taken seriously in the future. The Minister has taken those concerns on board and he is prepared to do something about it. Go raibh maith agat. Mr G Robinson: I begin by considering what the situation would be if a direct rule Minister were still responsible for water charges. Every person in Northern Ireland would already be paying a separate water charge. The non-domestic sector would already be paying a separate water charge. Those charges would not have taken into consideration the amount that was already being paid through the regional rate. Those points must also be set against the background of direct rule Ministers who did not — and do not — understand what is required in Northern Ireland, and against the background of the historical underinvestment in Northern Ireland’s water and sewerage infrastructure. Since devolution, all of the MLAs and residents of Northern Ireland have come face to face with the realities of governance. That includes tackling the poor state of water and sewerage infrastructure. The Independent Water Review Panel has produced its strand-one report to give us all a clearer picture of the immediate and mid- to long-term priorities, and guidance on solutions. To my mind, the fact that stands out most is the panel’s agreement that, until 1998, all of us had been paying for water and sewerage services via our regional rates. Therefore, the scheme that was to have been implemented by a direct rule Administration would have represented a double whammy of water payment. The Executive took the tough decision to scrap the plans for a separate payment for water and sewerage and to introduce a system whereby people are charged for those services as a component of their household bills. However, that has been deferred until 2009-10. The additional money will be used to put in place the infrastructure that Northern Ireland desperately needs to meet all the European water benchmarks. Parties agreed that no one should find themselves in hardship due to the additional charge. In his speech of 22 October 2007, the Minister for Regional Development said that “robust arrangements” would be necessary to protect those who are asset rich but cash poor. Thanks to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the number who may be affected by water poverty will be reduced. The average of £160 per household that has been paid for water through the rates since 1998 has been recognised, and the additional charge takes that into consideration. The deputy First Minister, speaking on 25 October 2007, stated: “We will invest £3 billion in the water, waste water”. — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 10, p480, col 1]. Regrettably, the Minister of Finance and Personnel has not got a magic wand, and, with the agreement of the Executive, he must allocate the resources at his disposal in the best possible way. He has done so, but the system entails each and every household making an increased contribution via the rates bill. The stepped introduction of the additional charge, the acknowledgement that people have always made a financial contribution for water and the introduction of a reduced charge — compared with what was proposed under direct rule — demonstrate that the devolved Government are working, and will work, for the best deal for the people of Northern Ireland. Mr McCallister: As a dairy farmer who produces a vital product and, of course, as a water user, I declare an interest. Mr S Wilson: The Member produces watered-down milk. Mr McCallister: That is to keep Mr Wilson healthy, because I know what a great environmentalist he is. [Laughter.] It is crucial that the Assembly gets this vital issue right. Water and sewerage services are extremely capital intensive, and the Assembly must set out its long-term proposals. Mr Clarke talked about Sinn Féin’s total opposition to water charges, but I do not know how he can get round them. On 28 February 2007, Councillor Alex Maskey said: “Today it was officially confirmed by the Department for Regional Development that a re-established Assembly would have the power to abolish the proposed Water Tax.” Not only has the Assembly been re-established but there is a Sinn Féin Minister for Regional Development. No matter how it may be dressed up, it is a tax on water. I acknowledge that initially it has been decided that it will be included in the regional rate; however, as Mrs Long pointed out, the rate may be frozen for the next two years but it will unquestionably rise at some point. I commend the work of the panel, and I agree that it has produced an excellent document that enables Members to start the debate. However, it is only a start: huge issues and questions must still be addressed. The panel’s report acknowledges the cost that has, historically, been paid for water and has incorporated the issue about paying for water twice. Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for giving way: at least he is more sympathetic than the last Member whom I asked to do so, Mr McHugh. Mr McCallister referred to the fact that, as a farmer, he already pays water charges. I have not fully grasped all that is in the report: does it mean that you and I would pay twice for water through the meter system and regional rate? Mr McCallister: I am glad that Mr Elliott asked that question. When I asked the Minister the same question on the 22 October 2007, following his ministerial statement, his response was: “The Member may be straying into areas that will be dealt with in the strand-two report.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 9, p421, col 1]. That is not correct, because it is not an issue for the strand-two report; it is an important issue about fairness, and I am sure that the Minister will want to address it. When he gets rid of the domestic allowance for metered customers — who are predominantly farmers, like myself — will they then have to pay a double taxation? I hope that the Minister takes advantage of the debate to answer that point. Owing to the state of the roads, the Minister did not arrive in time to hear Mr Wells’s comments. Nevertheless, will the owners of the 100,000-plus septic tanks that are dotted round our countryside have to pay for a service that they will not receive, considering that the charge will be levied on water and sewerage services? There are many issues in the report, and the Minister must respond to, and address, those that concern Members. My colleague Mr Cobain mentioned Land and Property Services and its ability to conduct the matter. Will the Minister clarify whether his Department has considered the cost of transferring part of the contract from Crystal Alliance to Land and Property Services, and whether it can deliver that service? Crystal Alliance’s contract deals not only with billing, but with customer services. The matter of efficiency targets is vital. If Northern Ireland Water does not meet its efficiency targets, who will pick up the bill? Will it be the ratepayer, through the rates, or the customer, through water charges? Either way, they are more or less one and the same person. The 22% efficiency target was set by experts, and it was approved by Deloitte and by the Department for Regional Development. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr McCallister: Am I not allowed another minute for the intervention? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions. Mr Speaker: Order. The intervention did not take one minute. If interventions are lengthy, granting a further minute is not a problem. However, if interventions are short, we must consider the time. Mr S Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s attendance, although he has found out to his cost this morning that the roads infrastructure in Northern Ireland probably needs some upgrading. I hope that he pays attention to the lesson that he has learned. This has been a good debate. It has been measured, in a way that some of the pronouncements that were made when the report was first issued were not. Even the Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development has moderated his comments. About three weeks ago, he said that he would not support any moves to make every Northern Ireland household pay for their water. Of course, that was contrary to the opinion of most of his party members, apart from perhaps the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, who was here for a while. He seemed to take the head staggers for a while, but then he began to realise that he could not ask for more money for his own budget while, at the same time, saying that he did not want money to be raised in the ways in which the Assembly had put forward. There has been some moderation in the tone. We have even seen some conversion from Sinn Féin. I welcomed Mr McHugh’s speech, but I do not know what it will do for his promotion prospects in the party opposite. He can thank his lucky stars that there has been decommissioning and everything else. Otherwise, he might have faced some sanctions from his own party. 12.00 pm I am glad that he has accepted that charging people for what they use is a way to make water charges fair — it is a common-sense approach. It may go against the ideology of his party, and even be contrary to what Mr Willie Clarke said, but it is common sense if we want to conserve water. We should not simply give people a fixed charge and let them use as much water as they want — as if to leave the tap on or have a burst pipe does not matter. It is fair that people should pay for water as they use it; that is the case with electricity, gas and many other services, so why not water as well? I hope that the Minister gives serious consideration to metering water consumption, because it will be essential in ensuring that people find water charges acceptable. As a party, the DUP made a commitment; it did not hold out an unrealistic prospect that a service could be got for nothing. People were going to pay for water in some way — if they did not pay through water bills, they would pay as a result of other services being pruned due to the use of money from the block grant. The DUP has ensured that people are not paying twice for water — that was unfair and has been addressed. Affordability remains an issue, and I hope that in the second stage of this process that will be properly addressed for those who are asset rich and cash poor and do not opt for the meter — although they should have the opportunity to do that — or those who find themselves in difficulty for other reasons. Naomi Long made the important point that we have to find ways to reduce expenditure on unnecessary infrastructure when it comes to collecting water — whether that is grey water from houses or rainwater — which could be used again. As a gardener, I collect a lot of water from the roof of my house, which is very good for plants in greenhouses and in the ground, et cetera. That is a very useful way of recycling water. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr S Wilson: I just wanted to get my green credentials on the record. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr O’Loan: I welcome the strand-one report and congratulate Professor Paddy Hillyard and the members of the Independent Water Review Panel, who have done an important job on our behalf. Although all comment at this stage is provisional — as final conclusions must await stage two — strand one represents real progress and offers much for a constructive way forward. Fundamentally, the SDLP has been opposed to a separate water charge and to the privatisation of the water system. We are reassured by what has been indicated so far, but will continue to be vigilant on those issues. Equally, the SDLP is fundamentally concerned about the relationship between any payment for water and the ability of people to pay. Affordability is a key issue for us. Although I welcome the proposal for an improved affordability scheme to prevent water poverty, we must see the full detail before giving it full backing. Water is essential to life and good health; there must not be a system that makes such a basic necessity a major financial burden for any part of the community. Any consideration of this scheme — designed as it is to be included in the rates bill, which is based on property value — inevitably leads to consideration of the many issues that are currently part of the review of rating. I do not want to go into those in detail, but rather make some broader points. A property tax is a crude mechanism for raising revenue. As I said in the Chamber previously, houses do not pay rates or any inbuilt water charges; it is the owners or occupiers who do that, and their ability to do so is only loosely related to property values. Therefore, a growing system of relief schemes is required to make the system fairer. However, there is a significant problem with the take-up of relief schemes, and we will scrutinise closely the detail of those schemes to see that they genuinely address the difficulties of those who are low paid but who are above the benefit levels, and groups such as pensioners who are often — and I hesitate to describe them as such — asset rich but cash poor. There is real need for an effective and workable affordability scheme. I believe that the Minister has not ruled out the introduction of metering in his immediate response to the report. Many people are keen on metering, and it must be recognised that they include the pensioners to whom I just referred, but those most keen are the people who use the least water. It remains to be seen whether any system of metering would be compatible with a broader system of charging that is based on property values. It will be useful for everyone to recognise that there is no perfect way of imposing water charges: there are difficulties and anomalies with any scheme. Some recognition of that point might make any future scheme more acceptable. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I apologise for missing the comments of some Members and especially those of the Chairperson, who I notice has just left the Chamber. I thank my Committee colleague, Mr McCallister, for mentioning the predicament of farmers. He is the only man who pays for water in his part of the country. Sammy Wilson mentioned decommissioning. I hope that we will not be talking about decommissioning or hosepipe bans in years to come. I add my voice and that of my colleagues to those who welcome the report, and I congratulate Professor Paddy Hillyard and other members of the panel for their work on strand one. Their efforts in dealing with this difficult issue in the time frame that they were given is to be commended. Sinn Féin called for a mandate to oppose unfair separate water charges and any attempt at privatisation, as did all the political parties here. I welcome the Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, to the Chamber. He ensured that an open and transparent review was conducted, that a fair payment for water through rates — as has always been the case — be highlighted on any bill, and that the notion of privatisation be consigned to the dustbin. I welcome those assurances. Members must also welcome the suggested freeze on payments. This is a clear illustration of local politicians making local decisions, which is what Members are elected for. I am sure you will agree, Mr McCallister. We must ensure that there is adequate protection for families for whom higher bills will cause undue hardship, those on benefits and the working poor. I am pleased that all Executive Members welcome and endorse the independent water review panel’s recommendations. I hope that any surplus assets found — now or in the future — will be reinvested in the infrastructure to further alleviate any payment from the public purse. I look forward to the next part of the review and to focusing the debate on ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and equally in the required water reform initiative. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Irwin: Like Mr McCallister, I declare an interest as a farmer and I declare that I pay for my water. However, he omitted to say that he gets a free allowance for his household water, just as all farmers do. Mr McCallister: It is well and truly known that that is the case. Mr Irwin: I am grateful that future decisions and deliberations on our water and sewerage infrastructure will be taken by locally elected politicians, and I am delighted that we have a high level of control over how the matter will be finalised. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the response to the strand-one report. The report contains the recurring theme of the need for transparency and the restoration of public confidence while deliberating on the reform process. There is a general feeling that direct rule Ministers had damaged public confidence and, indeed, many votes in the last Assembly election were cast on the basis of parties’ pledges on the water issue. As a member of the Committee for Regional Development, I am keen to ensure that this matter is concluded in the best interests of the consumer. In the context of the public’s wish for transparency, who could disagree that a step in the right direction was taken with the announcement that we would not be paying twice for our water, and that the amount that had already been contributed through the regional rate would be recognised and documented? I am under no illusion about the huge challenge that the Committee faces in deciding how best to take this matter forward. However, the initial steps that have been taken have provided a firm foundation for that work. I am encouraged that the report pays particular attention to the vulnerable in society, because we must not let a situation develop in which, for example, the elderly or those on low incomes are forced into becoming severely prudent in their use of water, or are forced to use water instead of home heating or other vital services in the home. The report refers to the lack of consensus on metering and on the capital-value method of charging. It could be argued that both methods could affect the vulnerable, with varying consequences. However, it is vital that, at the very least, the option to have a meter installed be a right that is afforded to any consumer. Protection of the vulnerable should be a key priority in any new arrangement, and the determination of methods to apportion charges must avoid, where possible, a detrimental impact on that section of the community. Efficiencies can be made in the water and sewerage network to help to reduce the level of water wastage and, ultimately, reduce the tariff that customers must pay. I await the review’s strand-two report with interest, because I understand that issues of efficiency will be dealt with in that. I also look forward to the publication of that report because of the further opportunities that it will present to debate this matter. Mr McCallister: Will the Member give way? Mr Irwin: No, I will not. I am almost finished. We have an opportunity that did not exist under direct rule to establish a fair and accountable system, and we have already seen positive steps towards that. I pledge my full commitment to tackling the challenges ahead. Mr McCallister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Irwin made an allegation about my not declaring a water allowance. Actually, the non-domestic — Mr Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate point of order. Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an seans labhairt ag an díospóireacht seo. Easy now lads, easy. Glac go réidh é. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Independent Water Review Panel report and its recommendations. Until the establishment of the panel, the history of water reform was one of a lack of public confidence. It was felt, with great justification, that the system was not open and transparent. Indeed, people held the firm view that there was a hidden agenda, at the heart of which was privatisation and, with it, unfair water charges. Sinn Féin opposed the direct rule proposal and involved itself in the public campaign to stop it. Going into the 7 March elections, Sinn Féin stated — and I quote directly from our election material, in case anyone is in any doubt: “If we get a fresh, enhanced mandate, Sinn Féin will go back into Stormont to oppose the present system of water charges. In a future Executive Sinn Féin will bring forward workable alternatives that will include full and open consultation, fairer arrangements and a pledge not to privatise water services.” I have listened to other Members this morning, and perhaps they should read their election manifestos, because the Ulster Unionists said that they were going to ask everyone to pay £100, irrespective of their ability to pay. Fred Cobain, the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, said that he is totally opposed to that, so he is obviously opposed to the UUP’s own manifesto. As the Minister for Regional Development — [Interruption.] There it is, Danny, in black and white, and I deliberately did not — Mr Speaker: Order. Members should address their remarks through the Chair. Mr McCartney: Our election material was available in both Irish and English. However, not to confuse Members, I decided to read in English, but it seems that Danny Kennedy still does not understand it. Perhaps his uncle, or his great-uncle — or whoever it was that gave up the Irish language for English — did not pass his knowledge on to Danny, because he does not seem to understand English. 12.15 pm (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) Indeed, Conor Murphy, as Minister for Regional Development, helped to deliver on that pledge. Perhaps this is more false information from the Executive, but I am told that the Executive subcommittee — which is made up of all parties, and includes the Ulster Unionist Party leader — and the whole of the Executive, including the two Ulster Unionist members, agreed that it was a positive report. No one can dispute that, under Paddy Hillyard’s direction, the review has been open and transparent. Its findings were influenced by the panel’s contention that the society we live in is often described as: “a 25/25/50 society with 25% of households living in hardship, 25% living in comfort and 50% with a good standard of living.” The report stated clearly that any increase in the outgoings of poor families would push them further into poverty. Rather than make petty political points in the debate, we should focus our attention on the protection of the most vulnerable in society. It is evident that the panel had that foremost in its mind as it set about its work. Sinn Féin welcomes the report as an important, positive first step in the process of creating a fair and equitable system and ensuring that water poverty will not be a facet of life in the North. I want to highlight several positives from Sinn Féin’s point of view. In particular, we welcome the declaration that the direct rule proposal should be abandoned and put in the dustbin. Furthermore, we welcome that there will be no separate bill for water and sewerage services, and the acceptance that we already make a considerable contribution to water through the rates. We also support the recommendation that the efficiency savings should be doubled. Some say that that is an ambitious target, while others argue, correctly, that the current target lacks ambition; therefore we agree that there should be efficiency savings. We also want to ensure that there are affordability arrangements and look forward to that matter being addressed in the strand-two report. I want to acknowledge the work of Paddy Hillyard, Joan Whiteside, Charles Coulthard, John Fitzgerald and their secretariat. Some believed that their task was onerous. Some said that they were involved in a paper exercise. It was an onerous task, which the panel members embraced with gusto and integrity. They did not seek comfort zones and nor should this Assembly. We asked for an independent assessment; we cannot now hide from its findings. The panel’s recommendations point the way to a fairer system: an end to paying twice; an end to the water charges that the direct rule Administration wanted to impose; and to the delivery of the Sinn Féin manifesto. Go raibh maith agaibh. Mr B Wilson: I welcome the report. The Green Party has always argued that water should be funded from general taxation and therefore supports the recommendation that there should be no separate water charges. The report is useful in identifying potential savings; however, I suggest that some of the assumptions are unduly optimistic. For example, I cannot see Northern Ireland Water making 40% efficiency savings within two years, particularly when it has no control over much of the costs. The main recommendation that £109 million should be transferred from the regional rate, and the suggestion that Roads Service should pay £25 million for road drainage, will clearly reduce Northern Ireland Water’s costs. That also means that there will be £134 million less to spend on other services, a fact that has been ignored by Members who have spoken previously. In accepting the report’s main recommendation and freezing the regional rate for two years, the Executive are giving the impression that the problem of paying for water and sewerage services has been resolved. In fact, nothing has changed, and any public celebrations are premature — the issue has not gone away. Even on the most optimistic assumptions of the Hillyard report, the domestic sector will still have to raise £217 million to pay for water services. The fact is that, under the Barnett formula, there is nothing in the block grant for water. In the rest of the UK, consumers pay the charges directly to the water companies, and there is no call on public finance. Therefore, Northern Ireland Water must be funded from existing resources — that is, either from the regional rate or from the block grant. Given that the Executive have decided to freeze the regional rate, funding must come from the block grant. That would mean that £217 million less would be available to spend on other services that are funded from that grant. Therefore, any money that we give to Northern Ireland Water must come from another source. That fact seems to have been ignored, and it explains the reason that the NHS here received an increase of only 2·6%, while the NHS in England received an increase of 4% in real terms, despite the fact that it does not share our problems of people waiting on trolleys and waiting lists. In practice, demographic trends and the fact that NHS inflation is significantly higher than basic inflation mean that that 2·6% increase for the Health Service represents, at best, a freeze in overall expenditure. That may mean that no funding will be available to implement either the recommendations of the Bamford Review, the new cancer screening programme, or measures to reduce incidences of MRSA. Although the rates freeze is politically attractive, it is unacceptable if a reduction in healthcare services for the sick and the elderly is to pay for it. Taking the longer-term view, the panel’s report suggests that household payments in future should be based on property values. The Executive appear to agree with that. For example, Hillyard suggested that £84 million would have to be raised in 2009-10. That sum would represent an increase of 16% in the regional rate. However, it would not represent a freeze in the regional rate, as the Budget suggested. We are totally opposed to any increase in the regional rate; rates are regressive and take no account of ability to pay. The payment load falls heaviest on the elderly and those who are on fixed incomes. It is unacceptable for those vulnerable groups to shoulder the main burden of water charges. I ask the Assembly to re-examine other forms of taxation, particularly one that is based on ability to pay. I was previously opposed to metering, particularly on grounds of fairness. I also doubted whether it was of any benefit to the environment. Having read the report, and having spent some months listening to evidence from many NGOs and pressure groups, I feel that metering cannot be justified on social, economic or environmental grounds. Evidence on the matter from Welsh Water and Scottish Water was significant, stating that metering is unnecessarily expensive, causes many technical and administrative problems, and adds between £40 and £50 to every water bill. Evidence from NGOs that shows that metering has led to public-health concerns in English cities and that the burden of payment falls heaviest on those who are on low incomes, the disabled, and young families casts doubt on the claimed fairness of the measure. I therefore support the recommendation not to introduce metering. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet today as soon as the House suspends for lunch. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00pm, when the Minister for Regional Development will deliver his response to the motion. The sitting was suspended at 12.23 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — 2.00 pm The Minister for Regional Development (Mr Murphy): Thank you, go raibh maith agat. I apologise for my late arrival this morning. I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, and in particular to those Members whose contributions I missed. I have had an opportunity over lunchtime to pick up on what some Members said, and I certainly intend to reply to their contributions. As is normal, I shall study Hansard and, if I have missed any points, endeavour to reply to Members in writing. I welcome the motion. The Assembly has had the opportunity to discuss the Independent Water Review Panel’s strand-one report on the cost of water and sewerage services, and how those are to be funded. I thank Members for contributing to what has been a wide-ranging debate. I have listened to the points that have been raised, and I acknowledge that we face serious challenges in deciding the best way to deliver sewerage and water services. Before I deal with some issues that were raised during the debate, I shall recap the Executive’s position. The Executive have agreed that the Independent Water Review Panel’s strand-one report provides the best way forward for achieving sustainable delivery of clean water and disposal of sewage, while minimising the cost to users and taxpayers. The Executive have accepted the recommendation that, from 2008-09, there should be full recognition that revenue from the domestic regional rate contributes to the funding of water and sewerage services. The independent panel has estimated that amount to be around £109 million, based on an uplift to today’s prices of the 1998 position. It has calculated that that equates to an average household contribution of around £160. In 2008-09, that will be households’ only contribution to the funding of these services, with the balance being paid from the NI block. That represents the Executive’s commitment to tackling the inequity of double charging. The Executive have accepted the panel’s finding that the revenue from the regional rate does not cover the full cost of water services, and we have agreed that, from 2009-10, additional contributions from householders will be necessary. We have concluded that those additional contributions should be phased in, and are working on the basis that, in 2009-10, household contributions for water and sewerage will equal the existing contribution from the regional rate, plus two thirds of the balance of the income that is required to fund the services fully. In 2010-11, household contributions will equal 100% of the amount that is required to fund the services fully. However, the amount that is due to be collected from domestic households will be reduced by the amount that households already contribute via the rates — £109 million, or an average of £160 per rates bill. That means that there will be no double payment for households. The Executive have noted the proposal that a single bill be issued to customers, with rates and water and sewerage charges identified separately. Further analysis by the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Finance and Personnel will be necessary to determine how that might be done and to assess the implications for existing billing arrangements and contracts. The Executive have also noted the panel’s recommendations on the way in which payments for services should be made in future, but have reserved our final decision until the panel has completed its strand-two report. I do, however, wish to allay one concern about the panel’s proposals on the use of property values as the basis for calculating water and sewerage payments. There is a belief that an increase in house prices will automatically lead to an increase in water and sewerage payments. First, payments will be based on the capital value of properties at 1 January 2005, as assessed by the former Valuation and Lands Agency (VLA). Secondly, the total payments that consumers make will cover the cost of the services provided. That will remain the case, even if there is a revaluation and the overall level of property values rises. Property values are used only to distribute total costs among individual consumers. Were the overall cost of water and sewerage services to stay the same and everyone’s house price to rise by about the same amount, bills would not change. Increases in house prices will vary, and that will lead to some redistribution, just as is the case with rates. Mr Wells: Will the Minister give way? Mr Murphy: I am not sure whether it is appropriate for a Minister to give way when responding to a motion, but I am happy to do so. Mr Speaker: Yes, it is appropriate, Minister. Mr Wells: The difficulty is that some parts of Northern Ireland have already experienced the rapid house-price increase. In my constituency of South Down, there has been an enormous price rise since 1 January 2005. However, that rise in house prices will kick in only when the revaluation occurs in five years’ time. When that happens, people will face an enormous rate hike, far higher than that in any other part of Northern Ireland. Equally, they will experience a much greater increase in their water payments. Mr Murphy: Declan O’Loan asked me about that during Question Time yesterday. The Member is presuming that, if house values increase, contributions to water and sewerage services will also increase. The amount of money required from domestic and non-domestic customers will be what is required to cover costs. If the cost of providing water and sewerage services does not increase, then, regardless of house values, that cost will remain the same. There will not be a corresponding increase in the amount required to fund water and sewerage services should house values rise. That is a misunderstanding, which this debate and other discussions on strand two of the report may clarify. There is a presumption that because house values may increase, the amount taken from domestic customers will rise accordingly. That is wrong. What will be taken from domestic customers will be enough to pay for the services provided to them and will not increase just because house values increase. Although the Executive wish to see the strand-two report before determining the method of payment, they have agreed that there will be robust arrangements to protect the vulnerable in our society from hardship and water poverty regardless of the payment system adopted. The Executive recognise the challenges and difficulties faced by the non-domestic sector and have decided to phase in the new charges more slowly; at 50% of the full charge in 2008-09 and at 100% of the charge in 2009-10. The Executive will also endeavour to reduce the burden on the consumer — both domestic and non-domestic — through delivering efficiencies and by attracting further revenue resources. There were several common themes running through the debate: affordability; ability to pay; metering; implementation of the panel’s recommendations on efficiency; the single bill; and other matters. Several Members welcomed the panel’s approach to dealing with double payment and the overall approach taken by the Executive on that matter. On issues such as affordability, Members have noted that we will have to await the strand-two report. In other areas, such as metering, there is a divergence of views, and we can debate those as we go forward. The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development and John Dallat made the point that the estimated contribution of £109 million was too low. That figure is not mine: it was derived by the independent panel and is comparable to the figure provided by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. If Members believe that the figure is too low, they will have the opportunity to speak to the panel about it during the course of its ongoing work. Mr McCallister stated that a water tax was being introduced. The Executive’s decision not to impose water charges in 2007-08 and to set up an independent review reflects their commitments and is in line with the recommendations of the Committee on the Programme for Government at the start of the year. The aims of the review are as follows: “• Carry out an independent and comprehensive review of the costs and level of funding needed for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland, to review how these costs should be met and how the services should be managed and governed within a public ownership model. • To help ensure that there is public trust and confidence in the future arrangements for financing and delivering water and sewerage services.” That is what we have sought to do. I heard Mr McCallister’s reference to party manifestos. Perhaps he should check his own party’s manifesto, although I realise that he was a late entry into the Assembly race. Nonetheless, he should have checked his party’s manifesto because I am satisfied that the position that Sinn Féin outlined in its manifesto is being met by the approach that is being taken by the Executive. John Dallat, Naomi Long, Gerry McHugh and the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development mentioned affordability protection. The panel has identified an issue that is within the scope of the affordability tariff, and that will be considered under strand two. I am confident that the panel has the required expertise in that area. The Executive’s key concern is that there should be adequate protections for all those on low incomes. Several Members, including Declan O’Loan, mentioned people who are asset rich and income poor. The strand-one report specifically says that the panel will look at that issue in its second report. Of course, all Members will have the opportunity to engage with the panel if they wish to do so. Domestic metering has provoked some discussion: it was mentioned by Naomi Long, Stephen Moutray, Sammy Wilson and others, and Brian Wilson had a counter-argument. We must bear in mind that the panel’s recommendations on charging will not be introduced until 2009-10, and that there are different views on domestic metering. The Executive will be reconsidering the matter following receipt of the panel’s second report in December. In my view, we should undertake a thorough appraisal of domestic metering as recommended by the panel. Several points were made about metering, and I will make several observations. One would have to question whether an immediate, universal, metering operation would be feasible. If everyone who might benefit from installing a meter chose to do so, that would require a high upfront cost of around £40 million and could prove to be unmanageable. Considered from a social perspective, metering does not prioritise those who might need help most — the asset-rich, income-poor group. From an environmental point of view, it is far from clear that metering would be the most effective solution. Even if it is popular with the public, metering is unlikely to provide the cost reductions that people imagine. In identical properties with the same consumption, a metered bill will be higher than an estimated bill. Water conservation requires a longer-term outlook that must relate to all those propositions, and that must happen sooner rather than later. Mr McHugh and George Robinson raised the matter of underinvestment, and the Independent Water Review Panel’s findings support the argument that, since 1989, investment levels have been lower than those in Britain. The panel is satisfied that, over the next few years, a substantial programme of investment is required to reduce the continuing gap in compliance performance. I wish that we could secure the funds to rectify underinvestment, but we must address the situation in which we find ourselves. I emphasise the investment that we are making — more than £500 million in sewerage alone before the end of the decade. Therefore, we must continue to rectify the shortfalls. Unfortunately and regrettably, we have been charged to find those funds from our own means. Naomi Long asked about a sustainable water policy, and I agree that we need such a policy. That is why, by the end of the decade, we will have invested more than £1 billion in our services. That will enable NIW to reduce leakage, to meet EU standards for drinking water and urban waste-water treatment, to improve the quality of bathing water and to protect the environment. John Dallat spoke about the dividend. The purpose of the dividend is to ensure that the company applies the appropriate disciplines to make a return on capital. I can confirm that the dividend is not linked to privatisation and that privatisation is off the agenda. John McCallister, Ray McCartney and others mentioned the single water and rates bill, and I have already stated that further work is required on that matter. Members asked whether such an arrangement could work and about the ability of Land and Property Services to make progress with it. John McCallister asked whether I had already begun to assess the situation with Land and Property Services, but it would have been inappropriate for me to have done so before the publication of the independent panel’s strand-one report. It would have been presumptuous to have anticipated that report’s outcome. However, on 22 October, I stated that my Department would work with the Department of Finance and Personnel to help to progress its assessment. Arrangements have been initiated to do that. John McCallister and Brian Wilson asked questions about efficiency targets. Executive subcommittee colleagues and I have not yet reached a view on the panel’s recommendations, which may require further investigation. Under direct rule arrangements, the Department for Regional Development was responsible for setting efficiency targets. That was in the context of reaching agreement on the strategic final plan for NI Water. The regulator is responsible for setting efficiency targets for 2009-10 onwards. It is prudent to engage the regulator in the review process as soon as possible — the advantage being that efficiency targets could be set independently. The fact that domestic contributions will be phased in over two years means that there will be more time in which to consider how to achieve more appropriate efficiency levels than those that are suggested in the panel’s report. John McCallister also spoke about the removal of the domestic allowance. The domestic allowance will remain until households make additional payments in 2009-10, when those who qualify for the domestic allowance will begin to pay a little more. The Member’s query related specifically to agricultural land. That land is not valued on the VLA database. Several Members mentioned septic tanks. Beyond their being emptied once a year, no charge is levied for septic tanks. When the sewerage contribution is removed from the regional rate in 2009-10, customers will begin to pay to have septic tanks emptied. The new charge will not mean that customers will pay twice, because it will be balanced by a reduction in rates. Declan O’Loan made the important point that no charging regime is perfect. Capital values are used only as a proxy for ability to pay or as an indication of water usage. The aim is to achieve the best balance between conflicting objectives, and the Executive are committed to finding the fairest and most transparent method of doing that. I take Mr O’Loan’s point that questions are raised. The fact that Members are in this arena discussing such issues shows that the matter has been taken up by a locally elected Assembly and Executive, and gives people a sense of confidence that they are being dealt with openly and transparently. Cathal Boylan mentioned surplus assets that belong to NIW. I agree that those assets should be disposed of in order to maximise benefit to customers and to invest, where possible, in future infrastructure.We will ask the regulator to undertake the proposed review of NIW’s assets. I note that the Committee for Regional Development has pointed out that it is not in anyone’s interest to engage in a fire sale of those assets. 2.15 pm Brian Wilson raised various issues about funding and where it should not come from, although perhaps his speech was not so strong on where funding should come from — he suggested some other form of local taxation. At present, NIW is fully funded from existing resources. The additional payments from domestic customers will release funds for other services, as will the extension of charges in the non-domestic sector. That will not be to the detriment of other services, but to their benefit. Brian Wilson also suggested that rates will increase as a result of the proposals. Rates will decrease in the short term, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel has said that rates will be frozen for the next three years. A household payment for water and sewerage services will be introduced because the strand-one report states that the current contribution that is made through the rates is not sufficient to pay for the service that is required. Those are some of the points that I managed to pick up. Again, I apologise for my absence during some of the contributions. I will study the Hansard report and, if there are other points that I have failed to answer, I will contact the Members who raised them. |