the transitional
assembly

Monday 18 December 2006

Assembly Business

Private Members’ Business
Water Charges
Implementation of Bamford Review

The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When will you be able to explain the security regulations of the House to the Members of the Assembly? There seems to be an effort to remove members of our police force from parts of this House. I want to know what that is and why new rules, which did not operate before, have now come into force. Members need to know exactly where they stand. I hope that at some convenient time — not today — you will be able to make a full statement from the Chair, as happened in the House of Commons when it experienced similar trouble. Let us keep to the same rules.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Dr Paisley. I have not heard of any such changes. As you know, I told the House that I was looking into the matter. The Assembly Commission has set up a special security review, involving its members and other invited personnel. At this stage — as I have already explained to you — there is an interim agreement with the PSNI for security in this Building on sitting days from 8.30 am until 6.30 pm. That arrangement will stay in place until full devolution, when it is hoped that we will have our own corps of PSNI people to look after us.

That is as far as I can go at the moment, because that is as far as the security review has gone. There is no change or diminution of security, especially on sitting days. I will be reporting back.

Mr P Robinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There have indeed been further restrictions on members of the close protection unit (CPU); can the CPU be taken into consideration when the review is being carried out? Can you also look at the access being provided to the CPU as compared with that being provided to the non-police escorts of other members of the Assembly?

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr Robinson. I certainly will be looking into that. As all Members will appreciate, I cannot discuss security in any great detail on the Floor of the House. I hope that Members, and everyone else who comes to or works in the Building, feel safe and looked after. Your and Dr Paisley’s comments will be taken into account. That is as far as I can go on the Floor of the House. I hope that you appreciate that.

Private Members’ Business

Water Charges

Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for each of today’s debates. The proposer of each motion will have 15 minutes, and all other Members who wish to speak will have 10 minutes. Two amend­ments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the List. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question that the amendment be made for each amendment in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the Marshalled List of Amendments, amendment No 1 appears to be down in my name, unless there is another R McCartney. [Interruption.]

Oh, there is? Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, he must be travelling incognito, because I have never come across him in the Assembly.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that that is to his detriment. Mr Raymond McCartney is here, and unless you want us in future to call you Mr McCartney QC to make it clear —

Mr Robert McCartney: No, just call me Mr Robert McCartney and the other Mr Raymond McCartney; that would seem to be the proper way to do it.

Madam Speaker: As always, Mr McCartney, I will listen to what you have to say.

Mr Cree: I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Government’s unacceptable proposals and legislation for the introduction of separate water charges in Northern Ireland, and calls on the Minister for Regional Development to examine and review the provision of water and sewerage facilities so that an improved service may be provided and an acceptable funding arrangement be enacted to cover the costs involved.

This motion was drafted some time ago, during the summer. It would have been nice to have had the opportunity of discussing it before the legislation had been passed, but obviously the Secretary of State was not prepared to let us do that. Things have moved on since then and I am aware that there are two amendments, which is entirely fitting. The first one contains a lot of detail and merit. The second, which is the amendment from the hon Member for North Belfast Mr Maginness, also has quite a lot to commend it, and I would be prepared to take that one on board.

During the past three decades our water and sewerage infrastructure has suffered significant underinvestment by successive British Governments. The Water Service now faces a £3 billion investment requirement to comply with EU directives on water quality, to respond to increasing demand for water and sewerage services and to replace ageing infrastructure.

In May 2002, the Chancellor announced the new borrowing power for the first Executive to finance infrastructure investment, subject to the debt being paid from additional local revenues.

Few people would object to paying more for an improved service, but the scheme devised by the Government does not have the support of consumers, any of the political parties or the trades unions. This is the first time that the Government have got all parties to agree on something. We were told that we would not have to pay towards the charges, but the Government have reluctantly had to agree that that is untrue.

In 1997, the comprehensive spending review (CSR) changed the system, but no reduction was made in the local rates. Prior to the privatisation of the Water Service in England and Wales, the Government paid a green dowry, and Northern Ireland was given a £50 million annual payment for the improvement of its water service. That money has not been ring-fenced — it has gone into the pot, or, should I say, a black hole.

While we might, therefore, share in the benefits of water reform, it will be at an unacceptable cost. The scheme is fundamentally flawed. Members know that a financial agreement was signed by the Treasury and the Secretary of State in 2005, but no one has seen that document. However, we know that it is central to the decision-making process, the financial model, the licence and the handling of assets. A letter of governance will give effect to the transfer of assets from the Department to Northern Ireland Water Ltd, the new company, and that letter will not be subject to scrutiny either.

I am also concerned about the disposal of surplus land. In reply to a parliamentary question, we were informed that the Water Service has 130 sites that it has deemed surplus to requirements and, therefore, suitable for selling. Some of the decisions on those sites go back 16 years, and nothing has happened yet. Under the Government’s plans, we do not know how those disposals will be dealt with or who will get the proceeds from the sales in the first three years.

Lord Trimble: The Member is concerned about who will receive the proceeds from sales in the first three years. Under the legislation, disposals are subject to approval by the Department. However, during last Monday evening’s debate in the House of Lords, Lord Rooker — speaking on behalf of the Government — said that the Department would be immediately issuing a general authorisation for disposals, and that from that point onwards there would be no Government or departmental regulation of disposals. On that point, Lord Glentoran, for the Conservative Party, believed that he had received a concession from the Government whereby the regulator would have a regulatory function with regard to those disposals from 2007. Is the Member aware of what the position is on that issue, because there was doubt on Monday night as to whether Lord Glentoran had received anything of substance?

Mr Cree: I thank the hon Member for his intervention. Last week, the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges; and Water Reform received evidence from a group of people, one of whom was the regulator. I am conveying the information that he supplied to the subgroup, so it may well be that the noble Lord has been sold a pup.

Members have not had access to the strategic business plan, but we know that the cost of capital will be 5·8%, and that is the highest in the UK. The debt provision has been set at 5%, which is low considering the experience across the water. One in four county court judgements in England and Wales are for non-payment of water bills. Last year, there was a 43% increase in legal action. Who will pick up the cost of non-payment of bills?

There is a major concern about the efficiency targets for the new company and who will pay for any failure to meet them? The Water Service’s land and assets are valued at £5·6 billion. They will be written down to £1 billion, and that will become the capital value of the new company. A dividend of £58 million — 5·8% of £1 billion — will be paid to the Government. If the dividend is not paid in full each year, the Department for Regional Development will have to make up the difference. We are told that the capital figure was recommended by the consortium led by the Union Bank of Switzerland and was necessary to ensure that the business would continue to be financially sustainable.

Clearly, that arbitrary valuation is costly to consumers. If it were a third less than the £1 billion figure, consumers could save £20 million each year. Remember that ratepayers paid for a significant portion of those assets over the years, with taxpayers paying the rest.

10.45 am

During subgroups’ evidence sessions, I was surprised to learn that access to the borrowing requirement depended on the introduction of water charges. Price protection must be extended until 2015, or until the new company breaks even. Of the £3 billion planned for investment, it has been estimated that approximately £1·4 billion relates to the capital backlog from the past. The Treasury should pay that to alleviate the capital problems of the company, whose arbitrary capital value is a significant cost to consumers. The strategic business plan must be available for public scrutiny before the Minister signs it off. The asset management plan and the estate management plan must also be considered. Neither is available yet, although the water reform legislation has been approved.

Following strong representations from the Consumer Council and other bodies, the Government developed an affordability tariff for those households that are in receipt of benefits. Whilst it was welcome, there is no indication of what will happen to the tariff after 2010. Will the Government continue to fund it, or will other consumers have to pay more? Will other services be cut by the same amount? The affordability tariff will apply to 200,000 households, that is approximately one third of all households, a large and important section of the population. However, another large group of households, which is just above the lowest income group, will be dramatically affected by water charges and other increased costs that are in the pipeline. Those people are concerned about their financial situation, as many are retired and living on limited pensions. Government has not addressed the major problem that others may fall into the poverty trap.

There are many problems with the Government’s proposals for water reform. They have pressed ahead and paid little attention for the concern expressed by political parties, the Consumer Council, the trades unions and everyone else, including the High Court. In the last few days, both the subgroup on economic issues and the subgroup on the comprehensive spending review, rates charges and water reform have taken evidence from the key players. Much useful information has come to light that reinforces our concern on how the Government have formed their view. It seems to be a mishmash of public spending rules and business practice without much common sense. We do not have the necessary information to enable us to form a detailed critique of the proposals. However, we know that what is being delivered is seriously flawed.

When the Act comes into effect in April 2007, a range of organisations will be involved in overseeing water and sewerage services. The Department for Regional Development (DRD) will have a general oversight role, and the Department of the Environment’s (DOE) Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) will be an environmental regulator and overseer of private water matters. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), the regulator and the Consumer Council will also have a role to play.

Are the roles of those bodies clear? Are there adequate and workable relationships in place in order to ensure that co-ordination is effective? We regret that the Secretary of State refused to listen to the Programme for Government Committee’s call for the deferment of water charges so that the Assembly could debate the matter. I contend that there is still time, and that we must wait until the Programme for Government Committee has concluded its deliberations next month.

Mr Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tairgim an leasú. I have always taken comfort that there are two McCartneys in the Assembly. I hope that Mr Robert McCartney also takes some comfort from there being another McCartney to join him.

Mr Robert McCartney: None at all.

Mr Raymond McCartney: No offence taken. [Laughter.]

Mr Robert McCartney: It was given. [Laughter.]

Mr Raymond McCartney: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “charges” and insert

“and further notes:

agreement within the Preparation for Government Economic Challenges sub-committee and the Programme for Government committee;

the work of the subgroup on Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rate Charges and Water Reform;

the ongoing work on an Economic Package for an incoming Executive;

and calls on the Secretary of State to make all necessary provisions to allow an incoming Executive to examine alternative models to deliver the public service that is the Water Service.”

I want to state my party’s support for the motion; to offer the rationale for its amendment; and to seek support for it.

All parties in the Assembly have stated their opposition to water charges publicly. However, despite that united opposition, not only has the British direct rule system allowed the opposition to be ignored, it has permitted the Department for Regional Development to proceed in a way that has treated public opinion with utter contempt.

Even though legislation has now passed through the British parliamentary system, all parties in this Assembly should send a clear message that the incoming Assembly and Executive will seek ways to offset that legislation and its effects. Not to do so would only strengthen the view that it suited the parties in the Assembly to allow direct rule Ministers to introduce charges while we took cover through suspension. Let the issue serve as a timely reminder that we, as political representatives, have let down the people on whose behalf we have been mandated to legislate. The Assembly should be in the position to do what it was elected to do.

We must ensure that the Assembly and the Executive will not allow this unfair tax to remain on the statute book unchallenged. We will explore all alternatives. The Coalition Against Water Charges provided the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform with a paper written by David Hall, which looks at more equitable alternatives — in particular, the payment of charges through the regional rates system.

Our message must be clear that the Assembly offers a way out of all this for those who will face an uncertain future because of water charges; those who are already in the cycle of poverty; those who will inevitably find themselves in that cycle in the not-too-distant future; and those whose jobs become more uncertain by the day as privatisation looms large in the background. By supporting the amendment, we will more than just reaffirm our opposition to water charges.

Last week the Subgroup on the Comprehensive Spending Review and Programme for Government; Rates Charges and Water Reform took evidence from a number of concerned groups. The evidence provided by the Anti-Poverty Network and the trade union representing Water Service workers shows that this is a real and present problem. We have the power to do something about it, and Sinn Féin wants to do something about it.

The Assembly should learn the lesson that initiatives should not be rushed into without full appraisal of all possible outcomes — a lesson that was learnt from the reinvestment and reform initiative. The Department for Regional Development — like consecutive direct rule Ministers in the past — has used the reinvestment and reform initiative as the rationale for the need to levy charges for water usage.

Sinn Féin accepts that there is a need for investment in water and sewerage infrastructure and believes that the blame for the lack of proper investment in that infrastructure over the years lies squarely with the British Government. With that in mind, Sinn Féin has argued for the required investment to come from a peace dividend, and that remains high on the party’s agenda in its discussions with the British Government. My amendment points to some practical steps that can take us away from the disastrous consequences of water reform.

I am also aware that Mr Maginness — and in case there is any confusion I mean Alban Maginness rather than Martin McGuinness, who is also a Member of the Assembly — has also tabled an amendment. Sinn Féin will withdraw its amendment and support his amendment.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr Alban Maginness to propose the second amendment published on the Marshalled List of Amendments.

Mr A Maginness: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Ireland” and insert

“, deplores the Secretary of State’s refusal to heed the Programme for Government Committee’s call for deferment of the Water and Sewerage Services Order, and believes that in the absence of a known Strategic Business Plan, Asset and Estate Management Plans, final licence details, adequate regulation or due consumer protection, the public can place no reliance on the figures which Ministers are indicating for future water charges and awaits a report from the Programme for Government Committee.”

I am grateful to Mr Cree and Mr Raymond McCartney for indicating that they will accept the amendment tabled in my name on behalf of the SDLP.

I hope that the House will reach the same broad consensus on the issue that has been reached in Committee. The Committee on the Preparation for Government and the Programme for Government Committee have made great progress in achieving political consensus on the issue.

The Government’s proposals, which Mr Cree ably outlined, are in effect a privateer’s charter. There is no doubt that the Government framed their proposals with a view to ultimately privatising the Water Service. With that privatisation will come a huge asset-stripping exercise by whoever buys or takes over the Water Service in whatever form it takes.

The assets at this moment are in the region of perhaps £5 billion. Those are rich pickings for anyone in the private sector who takes over the Water Service.

We have had the experience of Northern Ireland Electricity and the Northern Ireland International Airport being sold off. Will we ever come to our senses on selling off public assets, which are for the good of all of the community? They should not benefit private greed. They should be there to service the people, and if there are assets that are surplus to the requirements of the Water Service, or indeed any other public body, then they should be disposed of in a proper and transparent fashion, in the full interest of the people. The public interest must be served.

If Members look at the proposals that have been made, they can see the lack of transparency with, for example, the strategic business plan. There is no transparency with the licensing of the Go-co, the liabilities that that company may have, or the sustain­ability of that company when it goes into operation on 1 January 2007. There are disturbing reports of high levels of inefficiency in the Water Service. That inefficiency can create a situation in which the new company is unsustainable in the medium term. If it does become unsustainable in the medium term, what then happens to the company and the Water Service?

The Government’s lack of transparency has been deliberate and is to disguise their objective, which is ultimately to privatise the Water Service. We should be in the position of protecting the public ownership of the Water Service and the land and assets belonging to it.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Yes.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. When the Member talks about sustainability in the short term, does he agree that it will always be sustainable, in so far as the public and the consumers will be used as a cash cow to ensure its sustainability?

Mr A Maginness: That is the very point that I would make to the House, and I am grateful to my learned Friend for raising it.

The reality is that the company itself is not going to be given the proper support that is necessary to ensure its sustainability. Despite the fact that successive British Governments have failed to invest in the Water Service, the Government have not presented the people of Northern Ireland with the necessary additional funding to invest in the Water Service. There has been no green dowry for the Water Service here. The present underinvestment is solely the responsibility of successive British Governments, and yet they are asking the people of Northern Ireland to pay for their neglect. That is the reality, and it is totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland.

The Government’s contempt can be seen not just for the political consensus on this issue within this House and among the wider trade union movement, voluntary groups and the Consumer Council; their contempt for the legal process here could be seen when the Government Minister in the House of Commons rejected the recent ruling by Mr Justice Weatherup on the lack of consultation that the Government engaged in on these proposals.

Mr Justice Weatherup’s point was not a narrow technical one. It was based on good legal precedent — the Coghlin principles. Those principles demand that any public body should conscientiously enter into consultation with its consultees. In other words, one cannot just pretend to consult; there must be a conscious effort. The Government were in neglect of their heavy legal duty to do that. Mr Justice Weatherup made a point of legal substance, but the Government, in the House of Commons, rejected his findings. That is deplorable, but it is typical of this Government’s determination to treat the people of Northern Ireland with contempt. This issue is simply a further reflection of that contempt.

11.00 am

In the SDLP’s view, the utility regulator will not have sufficient power and the breadth that is necessary to regulate the water industry. Furthermore, the regulator will have no control over the disposal of assets, no matter what Lord Glentoran was assured of in the House of Lords. The reality is, as my Friend Mr Cree has said, that he was probably sold a pup. Lord Glentoran was given an assurance, which he accepted, and for which he will rue the day, because there is no additional power going to the regulator in relation to that assurance.

It is disgraceful that the Government have put a time limit of three years on the affordability tariff. What will disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the community do after that date, when the tariff runs out? How are they going to deal with the increased costs and charges that the water company will be under pressure to impose? The Government have shown gross irresponsibility on this matter.

There are many other concerns that one could address in relation to this woeful piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker: Mr Maginness, your time is up.

Lord Morrow: I congratulate Mr Cree on bringing this motion before the Assembly. It is an important issue that has united all sections of the community and all political parties. However, the Government are, sadly, not prepared to pay any heed to what any of the parties has to say, or, indeed, what the people of Northern Ireland and the trades unions have been saying about water reform.

It has been correctly said that this is a classic example of the Government doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. Any justification for the Government’s intentions must surely have been removed by the High Court declaration of 22 November; but, alas, according to Lord Rooker, who spoke on the matter in the House of Lords on 8 December, it is not to be that way. It seems that nothing can change this Government’s attitude on this important issue.

None of the Ministers who have steamrollered this through and who will implement it will have to live with their decisions. They will demand that the people of Northern Ireland pay up, but they will be far away when the bills drop through the letter boxes.

It is clear, from the positions taken by the political parties, that there is widespread opposition to the Government’s proposals. Indeed, the DUP won a substantial mandate in the 2005 Westminster election on the basis of a manifesto commitment to oppose Government proposals on water charging. Therefore, there is no support in the Province for the Government’s plans. Time and time again, the Government must get the message that they are a Government of imposition and do not rule with consent. The Government intend to impose these swingeing water charges, but, of course, they will not have to pay.

In this parliamentary session, water charging is one of the most, if not the most, important issues to affect Northern Ireland. Due to the process by which Northern Ireland legislation is dealt with at Westminster, the Order will receive scant attention in a Committee, with no possibility of amendment. For a Bill that has 308 clauses and 13 schedules, it is constitutionally outrageous that Government should give a mere hour to an hour and a half to debate something that will have such an impact on the people of Northern Ireland. The pre-legislative consultation process does not make up for that inadequacy.

Although there are significant accounting issues on whether water services in Northern Ireland should be self-financing, the evidence for, or detail of, water charges should, ultimately, be a matter for the people Northern Ireland to determine. There are spending implications for Northern Ireland if we do not proceed with water charges, but those choices should be left to the people of Northern Ireland.

In addition to the general considerations that I have set out, there are several specific objections to the Government’s proposals.

First, they do not take account of the contribution already made to the provision of water services. Although not specifically related to the detail of the Order, no account has been taken of the contribution that is already made towards the cost of water services through the regional rate. Inevitably, that will increase the average water charge and make the introduction of water charges more unaccountable than would otherwise have been the case. It is one thing to pay for water; it is quite another to pay for it twice.

Secondly, the Government were disingenuous with their justification for water charges. The Government have sought to justify water charges on the basis that they were addressing the Water Framework Directive. However, they then devised a system that did not meet the requirements of the directive.

Thirdly, the Government have used water charges as a mechanism, and as a cover, to increase massively the level of local taxation in Northern Ireland. At the same time, there has been a significant increase in the regional rate, and a new rating valuation system. Although there may be justification for a separate charging mechanism for water services, that does not mean that there must be a significant increase in the overall tax burden.

Fourthly, the Government have reneged on proposals in relation to the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI). As originally proposed, water charges were to be regarded as qualifying revenue when considering the capacity to avail of the borrowing power under RRI. Since then, the Government have changed the rules, and, as a result, there is no advantage, in terms of borrowing, to water charges. When compared with the overall Northern Ireland budget, water charges make up a very small percentage of local spending. The significant additional burden of water charges on the householder makes little difference to what can be done about spending.

The DUP continues to oppose the privatisation of the Water Service in Northern Ireland and believes that any future change to the status of the Water Service should come about only in circumstances where there is widespread support in Northern Ireland.

It is unreasonable to expect householders to pay the cost of road drainage. That should be met from other sources.

My party believes that the option of voluntary metering, with appropriate consideration given to infrastructure costs, should be available for all Northern Ireland consumers. We reject both the requirement for universal metering, as it is too costly, and no metering, as it is too unfair. The capital value of a home is too inaccurate a measure of the householder’s ability to pay for it to be used as the only method of assessing water charges. The argument that only the better-off would opt for metering could be negated by setting the fixed cost element at an appropriate level. Ultimately, wider availability of water metering will promote greater conservation of water. In the Government’s proposals metering is made available to certain groups, and we welcome that, but we do not believe that it should be limited to those groups. It is not clear that vulnerable groups will benefit from metering. Therefore, the alternative of metering, as presently proposed, may prove to be an empty gesture.

Over the past few decades, Northern Ireland has faced greater challenges than any other part of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is less able to pay water charges than any other region. In those circumstances, my party believes that the average water charge in Northern Ireland should be no higher than the average paid in England and Wales, with a maximum charge fixed at that level. That should produce an appropriate balance: Northern Ireland’s householders would be required to make a real contribution towards the cost of water, but not be punished for a lack of Government investment. The Government’s proposal to protect vulnerable groups is one of the more welcome aspects of the package, but we believe that such protection should not be temporary. The DUP will continue to oppose water charges, and we support the motion.

Mr Neeson: I welcome the debate and thank Mr Cree for bringing the motion before the Assembly. The Alliance Party will support the amendment proposed by Mr Alban Maginness, which brings the motion up to date.

No issue has created more public concern in Northern Ireland than that of water charges, not only among the elderly, but among householders generally. The Government have misled the community by claiming that we do not pay for water at present. We are paying water charges through the regional rate. If the Government introduce water charges next year, will the regional rate be reduced? That needs to be addressed.

We all know that there have been problems with the Water Service. In the twenty-first century, it is unacceptable that raw sewage is pumped into Belfast Lough at Blackhead. There are many other short­comings in the service. Those must be addressed, and EU directives on water must be met. How has this situation arisen? The simple answer is underfunding by direct-rule Ministers over the years.

It is easy to point the finger at direct-rule Ministers, but Northern Ireland was coming through 35 years of turbulent Troubles, during which budgets had to be redirected away from the Department of the Environment and the Water Service. The legacy of the Troubles cannot be ignored. In the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges facing Northern Ireland, the so-called peace dividend was discussed. One of the issues put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, when he met a delegation of Members, was the question of delaying implementation of the legislation until the Assembly was up and running.

There was a negative response from the Chancellor; he said that if we were prepared to sell off the assets of the Water Service, we could keep the money. His bottom line was that if we sold off the Bog Meadows, we could keep the money.

11.15 am

A lot of interest groups have voiced their opposition to the introduction of water charges. I congratulate the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland for its work. That organisation went to court and got a ruling in relation to the haste with which the Government carried out its so-called consultation.

As other Members have said, there is a need for transparency and for the publication of the strategic business plan.

The legislation is deeply flawed. Once again, there is the issue of the people who will, unfortunately, get into debt because of water rates. A class society is being created — a society in which those less well off will have to pay their debts sooner than those who are better off. Many other issues also show that the legislation is deeply flawed.

We are witnessing the introduction of the privatisation of the Water Service through the back door. A few years ago, I wrote to Mr John Spellar — he became a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office — voicing my concerns about the possibility of water privatisation being introduced to Northern Ireland. Mr Spellar wrote back saying:

“I am fully aware of the very strong opposition to water privatization across the board in Northern Ireland.”

He went on to say:

“Apart from privatization itself, I am also concerned at proposals to introduce legislation through the back door, particularly on water metering.”

To the Members of the House I put the question: can we trust this Government? The answer is no.

Mr Robert McCartney: I would not buy a new car from them, let alone a second-hand one.

Mr Neeson: That is true.

I wish to express my disappointment with the stance taken by Lord Glentoran in the House of Lords last week. Normally, Robin would be very supportive of the interests of the people in Northern Ireland.

We have to put the water charging being proposed by the Government into perspective. It is not a utility tax; it is a property tax, because the charges are being based on the value of people’s homes.

I must question the relevance of the debate in the House today and the other debates that have taken place. The people who should be dealing with this issue are those who were elected by the people in Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin and the DUP may bleat about the question of water charges, but the timetable for deliverance is there. The question is: can the DUP and Sinn Féin deliver within that timetable?

Mr Robert McCartney: I support the motion and the amendment in the name of Mr Maginness. There is no support for these proposals from the consumers, the unions or, indeed, the parties. Today, I have listened to speeches that would have done credit, both in material and presentation, to another place. However, I regret to say that those considerations, so ably put, have come rather late in the day. Although Members are concerned with the future, we must examine the past: it was a devolved Assembly that put forward the proposals, albeit in embryo form, for the hikes in the regional rate and the imposition of water charges that are being suffered.

In May and June 2002, the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Seán Farren, talked in the Chamber about future financial provision and fresh streams of revenue. I questioned his use of such euphemisms to describe what he meant when clearly the only streams of revenue available to him were an increase in the regional rate and the imposition of water charges. All of that goes back to the failure of the parties who signed the Belfast Agreement to spend adequate time on the financial considerations of accepting devolution. According to the former Secretary of State, and effective political Minister in 1998, Paul Murphy, the parties spent exactly 15 minutes discussing those considerations. At that time, it was known that there was a black hole of capital underinvestment of some £10 billion, to which I repeatedly drew attention in the House. In May 2002, again in November 2004, and most recently in July 2006, I wrote major articles for the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ outlining what was in prospect for the regional rate and water charges.

Why were the parties in the Assembly so tardy in responding to what would clearly be a fundamental issue? The reason is plain: the parties had, in large part, been responsible for what is now being imposed. The constant defence of Northern Ireland Office (NIO) Ministers, in relation both to the imposition of water charges and the hike in the regional rate, has been that they are merely putting into practice what the devolved Assembly contemplated and intended to do.

As Lord Morrow quite properly said, it is sad that the Government are not prepared to listen. Members must always remember that a devolved Assembly, if restored, can only do what is possible within the financial limitations that the British Treasury will always impose upon it. Minister Hanson made that point when he said that if devolution were restored and the Assembly decided not to impose water charges, it would have to find from other sources the £300 million that water charges would have raised.

The Secretary of State has pointed out that if there were any capping of regional rates or any other amelioration of the rates burden, the money to allow for that would have to be found from within the financial resources of Northern Ireland.

It is all very well to talk about what a devolved Assembly would do and how it would alleviate these problems, but it will be possible for it to do that only by extracting money from other sources. Whether the cake is divided up by a NIO Minister or by some resurrected Assembly, it is the same cake. The only function that the Assembly, if resurrected, will have is to make provision for different slices for different public needs. However, the amount of money in the pot will never increase. When Members talk about what can be done, what will be deferred, or how they will improve the lot of the consumer, they must bear in mind that there is no magic touchstone that will, if the Assembly is restored, provide a panacea for our economic ills.

I wish to comment on the parties who attended the St Andrews talks and variously signed up for a road map, a route map, a new agreement, or, as some people claim, a review of the Belfast Agreement. Whatever they signed up to, it appears — according to the Secretary of State in Parliament — that the UKUP, and myself in particular, are the only people who are not crying “hallelujah” about it.

What did those parties who were for the St Andrews Agreement bring back to address our economic problems? Absolutely nothing, other than an airy-fairy promise of an economic package, which those two fraudsters outside No 11 Downing Street represented as £50 billion over the next 17 years. When that package was examined, it had not a single ha’penny of new money in it.

Absolutely nothing was brought back from St Andrews. The capping of rates was hailed as a triumph, but it will help only 3,000 households in Northern Ireland and will have absolutely no bearing on the vast bulk of the people who face huge rises in regional rates. Another claim is that something has been done about water charges. In fact, absolutely nothing has been done. The £300 million will still have to be found.

Will the Assembly cut back on education programmes? Will it cut back on money that is necessary for health, or for the environment? Where will the Assembly find the money to distribute largesse in the form of abolishing water charges? Where will it find the money to do something about the rates system? When the Assembly was in charge, until October 2002, it did not find any means within the limitations imposed on it by the British Treasury to do anything other than consider the imposition of water charges and carry out a fundamental review of rates on a capital-value basis. It is time for everyone to be realistic, and not simply to stand and protest, if that protest is to be a futile and meaningless one.

Whether Members belong to the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP or the Ulster Unionists, they cannot continue to con the people that they will wave some type of magic wand and usher in a golden age when devolution is restored. They will still face the same problems that were faced by the Northern Ireland Assembly when it was up and running.

11.30 am

While it gives me no pleasure to point out the realities, it gives me an increased sense of well-being to realise, from the quality of the speeches that have been delivered, that there is a new awareness. It is an awful pity, therefore, that, in April 1998, Members did not possess such awareness when the terms of the restored, devolved Assembly were agreed.

Mr Shannon: At the beginning of the debate on this issue, a press release issued by the Department for Regional Development on behalf of David Cairns stated that:

“Legislation which will shortly go to Parliament will provide a framework to improve drinking water, better protect the environment, enhance the ability to sustain economic growth, improve essential services and introduce new protections for customers.”

That is exactly what Northern Ireland needs: the rest of the UK has enjoyed such services for years, while, because of the Troubles, we have been denied them. David Cairns pointed out just what we have been missing out on in Northern Ireland. No one here will question that, except, perhaps, the point about drinking water: if we need improved drinking water, what quality of water have we been drinking for the past 30 years?

Undoubtedly, this inefficient and unstable system must be reformed. The problems that Members of the Assembly — and, indeed, the people of the Province — have are the manner in which the reform is being carried out and the question of who will foot the bill. In many cases, how will people be able to afford the hike on top of their rising rates, heating, fuel and food bills? David Cairns has issued assurances that over a quarter of customers will receive automatic assistance with their bills, but that begs the question: what will the remaining 75% be made to sacrifice to enable them to pay their water charges?

Not satisfied with the rates hike, which means that households will have to strain to pay more based on the capital value of their homes, the Government are further burdening families and small businesses with water charges, which are also unfairly distributed. An example of this unfair distribution would be a four-bedroom home, housing five children and their parents. Under the proposed system, the parents would pay a higher bill proportionate to the amount of drinking, washing and bathing water that they need. Ten years later, however, when the children have flown the nest, leaving their parents alone in the house, is it fair that they must continue to pay the inflated charge based on the number of taps in the house? Should those parents continue to face the high charge in spite of the fact that they will use no more water in their four-bedroom home than they would in a one-bedroom flat? Is that the fairness and equality that have been mentioned? Is it any wonder that my constituents are asking for meters to be installed to ensure that they do not pay extra for their water? This is simply unacceptable.

Another fact is that although a couple could have paid £80,000 for their house 15 years ago, that house could now be worth £200,000. That couple’s income may not have risen at the same rate, yet they are being asked to pay a huge amount in charges. For how much longer will the middle classes who just “get by” have to foot the bills of the inadequacies and inefficiencies of Government practice?

As it stands, the strategic business plan for Northern Ireland Water Ltd does not set out a sustainable future. It seems that, for the objectives of the plan to be fulfilled, there will have to be further price hikes, more burdens placed on the average households and an endless accruement of mounting charges. That approach does not seem to pass the consumer-fairness test. The capital value of a person’s property has no link to his or her ability to pay the proposed water charges or to be able to keep up with those payments in the event of an illness or retirement. It is a grave mistake to assume that a large house means a large income, and the general public cannot be expected to underwrite that mistake.

As the findings of the judicial review initiated by the Consumer Council show, the legislation has been rushed through, with the result that we have been handed an unfair, messy, piecemeal effort that will need much clarification and tidying before it can go any further. Despite assurances from Government officials, it is clear that there is less accountability than there is with energy provision or other products. Why is this? Is this yet another attempt to push through unsatisfactory legislation that benefits no one but the Treasury and Government accountants? Is this another abuse of direct rule to punish us for not jumping through Labour hoops?

For three years, Northern Ireland consumers will have the cushion of the Government’s pledge to pay the £30 million affordability tariff, but what will happen after that? Will consumers pay? If the Govern­ment want to ensure fairness and equality, confirming that the majority of consumers will not be forced to pay for the minority who cannot afford the charges, they should offer us a positive assurance that they will continue to provide the subsidy along with other alternatives.

As the Consumer Council has clearly and concisely stated, that can be achieved by making a bond to continue to pay the affordability tariff, by continuing price pegging beyond the current three-year promise and by requiring the Go-co to deliver a business plan that will ensure sustainability and guarantee protection and the best possible service provision to the people who foot the bill. Surely that is not too much to ask for — indeed, we are entitled to that.

The proposed system does nothing more than grab at money, with no thought given to the future and how those targets can be reached and sustained. Over the next 20 years, an additional £3 billion will be needed for the new system, which, on top of other bills, equates to some £10,000 per household. That does not take inflation in the housing market into account, which is another hidden burden, meaning that more families are on the breadline. That is no exaggeration, given that over 350,000 people are officially on the poverty line in Ulster, with 24% unable to pay for adequate heating. The majority of people have no savings and are, according to the Simon Community, only two pay cheques away from homelessness. The added burden of water charges can only push more people towards the poverty threshold. There are over 200,000 vulnerable households in the Province, and those who are just above this level cannot afford to maintain this load, and they should not be expected to.

There are worries not only about the costing and financing of the proposed legislation but about accountability, which I mentioned earlier. The £1 billion loss due to electricity privatisation and the Thames Water plc increase have been cited as clear examples of what happens when regulators are not accountable; something must be done about that. The question rightly arises: does the legislation provide the framework of accountability to stop tests that have been failed in the past from failing yet again? This rushed job has not provided that assurance. When will the assets totalling £5·6 billion be available to sell? Who will regulate the regulators? Most importantly, to whom will the regulators be held accountable? Those are issues that must be clarified; without that clarification, the legislation should not, and cannot, go forward.

I have highlighted only a couple issues, because I know, given that the legislation is a quagmire, that other Members will want to dwell on other areas. There are many other issues such as bad debt, price pegging and the capital backlog. However, even the few points that have been made are enough to illustrate how ill conceived this legislation is. Consequently, I support the motion for an immediate in-depth review of the legislation by the Minister with responsibility for regional development. David Cairns stated that, after the devolved Administration was put in place:

“It will then be for local ministers to decide how best the policy might be developed to provide protection for those who need it most.”

I believe that that is impossible. It not only indicates that the Minister is aware of the fact that Members of the Assembly should create a policy that benefits the people of Northern Ireland, but it clearly shows that the legislation, in its current form, does not protect the people of the Province and is being used as another prod in the direction of devolution at the cost of our constituents.

This cannot and will not be tolerated by members of the DUP or Members of the Assembly. We will not allow ourselves to be held over a barrel at the risk, and to the detriment, of Northern Ireland. We have long been neglected in this area, and the legislation does not include the necessary amendments; it cannot continue any further. If we wait until devolution to amend the legislation, that will be like shutting the gate after the horses have bolted. The legislation is useless, intolerable, unacceptable and seriously undemocratic.

Madam Speaker: Members, Ms Kathy Stanton will now make her maiden speech. As Members know, it is the convention that such a speech be made without interruption.

Ms Stanton: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I support amendment No 2, proposed by Alban Maginness. Under these water reform proposals, water affordability will be out of the reach of many households in the North. This is not a green or an orange issue but an issue that unites all of us. If the legislation is not deferred, it will have drastic and long-term effects on all people, but especially on the 150,000 families that will be driven further into poverty and debt. Income will not be enough to meet the ever-increasing privatisation of public services. If the proposed legislation is adopted in its present form, an income at or above the relative income poverty line will not be enough.

The Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network (NIAPN) has estimated that roughly 37% of the average non-itemised rates bill goes towards water and sewerage provision. The Minister’s proposed additional water charges will be based on the value of a person’s house. That is deeply worrying for low-income households, as well as for those on benefits or in receipt of a pension. We have already been paying for our water, yet we are now being asked to foot the bill for the British Government’s failure to invest in our infrastructure.

The value of people’s homes has risen dramatically over the years. It has been quoted that house prices are rising £100 a day. People’s incomes, however, have not increased in line with that rise in order to meet what the Government propose. On average in the North, where there is a higher cost of living, people earn 20% less than they do in Britain. Water charges will simply push people further into poverty and debt. We already have worse poverty figures than anywhere else in Britain or Ireland.

My constituency of North Belfast and that of West Belfast contain 17 of the 20 most deprived super-output areas (SOAs) in Belfast, yet those two constituencies receive a mere 8·3% of total inward-investment assistance between them. The groups and communities that are least able to pay will be affected most by the proposed charges. As I said earlier, the legislation will drive 150,000 families deeper into poverty and debt.

It is ironic that the British Secretary of State published an anti-poverty strategy last month, yet the Minister with responsibility for regional development is simultaneously proposing charges that will significantly increase poverty levels. Where is the logic in that? To introduce water charges contradicts the latest DRD report, which reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to effective protection for those on low incomes.

The North of Ireland has experienced failed policies from England that have resulted in lower wage levels and in higher levels of family and child poverty, of inequality, of disability and of illness. Save the Children estimates that one in three children in the North live in poverty. Fuel poverty is already a major issue, but the British Government’s plans to introduce water charges could lead to many homes in socially deprived areas also having to come to terms with water poverty. NIAPN is on record as saying that to privatise water and sewerage services will, in effect, privatise all of the North’s households. Tenants will face growing charges at a time when some private landlords are already bleeding their tenants dry.

Any private company’s priority is to represent the interests of its shareholders in order to ensure that they get a return on their investment. The only way in which to guarantee that they get that return is to continue to increase charges. We only have to look at past mistakes — namely, the privatisation of NIE — to learn from them. The people actually pay the levy that NIE says that it contributes to deprived communities. The result is that the poorest in society pay the most, and even then they are only paying for basic needs.

The Transitional Assembly should ensure that people are put before profit, and we should not allow the British Government to blame the people for not having adequate incomes, for being unemployed or for having to live in poverty. It is the Government’s responsibility to protect the rights of citizens, and water provision is one of the most basic rights. Statistical evidence has shown that unemployment has dropped yet poverty has increased. Inadequate social-welfare payments are much more a cause of poverty than unemployment.

Therefore, once again, we see with this latest piece of legislation the dominant theory prevailing — we have been set up to fail the people. Will the poor always be with us? Put simply, the answer is yes, but the numbers of poor will also be increasing. Brigid Reynolds, in her paper ‘Mind the Gap between Rich and Poor’, asked a conference that I attended last year how we can expect our economic and social infrastructure to catch up with that of the rest of Europe if we gather less taxation income than it takes to run the infrastructure that is already in place in most of those European countries.

We will never bridge the social and economic infrastructure gaps unless we invest a larger share of our income in building a fairer and more successful Ireland.

Sinn Féin supports the role of trades unions, Water Service employees, anti-poverty groups and the Consumer Council in their bid to ensure that the privatisation agenda is reversed.

11.45 am

Mr McGimpsey: I support the motion.

Like most Members, I believe that water is not an economic commodity to be charged for; it is a human right. The debate is not about how much water people use; it is about how much water they need. We have a water system for good reason: 100 years ago, diseases such as cholera and typhoid were rife in Belfast, and the solution was to ensure the proper disposal of waste through a sewerage system and to ensure the delivery of clean drinking water to each household.

Even in the halcyon days of free enterprise and business in Britain, it was recognised that water services could not be provided privately at a profit. Therefore, it was public expenditure that provided the sewerage system, built reservoirs to store water and provided a system to deliver clean drinking water to each house. That is the system that we inherited. It was reinvested in over the years religiously and, over the years, everybody in Northern Ireland paid for water through the regional rate. We continue to pay for our water to this day, so the assertion that we do not is simply untrue. There is, of course, a problem with crumbling infrastructure.

When the Executive took over in November 1999, they discovered that the infrastructural deficit in Northern Ireland was approximately £15 billion. That was no surprise. Over 30 years, the cost of the war was around £500 million each year. Although successive direct-rule Ministers said that the money was provided over and above normal revenue and would not affect normal provision of services; it did. In fact, that £500 million a year, which was used to pay for all the burned buildings and buses, for the agony and misery and for the Army and police, came from normal funding revenue. Funding for the Water Service was no different.

The Executive took over the need for massive investment in hospitals, roads and public transport, and some of the results of that investment can be seen today. The Water Service was an area under consideration. However, it is not true that the Executive intended to privatise water services or to start charging for water. Certainly, the then Minister, Peter Robinson, proposed some options, but that was as far as it got.

It is true to say that, historically, a green dowry was provided for water provision in Northern Ireland, as was also provided for England, Scotland and Wales. Central Government made massive investments in the water industries in England, Scotland and Wales in order to fatten them up for privatisation. Water services in England and Wales were privatised, but Scotland did not follow suit. However, no similar investment was made into Northern Ireland’s green dowry. That is why there is such a huge problem now.

Mr Robert McCartney carefully analysed our problems, he did not analyse the solution so carefully. We are clearly facing a privatisation agenda. The steps taken so far make sense only if they contribute to selling off the water industry. Therefore, a sustainable level of charges per household must be created. Alban Maginness talked about sustainability, which is one of the problems in the Water Service’s business plan. Currently, each household pays around £130 per annum for water through regional rates; under charging, that figure will treble to around £400 per annum, and that is just the start. Those charges will create the cash flow and funding for the new company.

In the legislation, I notice that Peter Hain has christened the new company a “Go-co”. That is an interesting name. As we know, the Go-co will have a captive market for providing our water. Water is an absolute essential — we cannot do without it. People will have to pay pretty much what the new company dictates. I have no confidence in regulators. I have seen how the electricity and gas regulator operates, and he does not do a particularly brilliant job for the consumer.

The water and sewerage service is a public asset; it has worked as a public asset for 100 years — there is no need to sell it. Instead, the need is for investment, which we must seek ways to secure. The last thing that we should do is to sell our water utilities. There is no need to sell that public asset, and members of the public do not want it to be sold. In every consultation that has been carried out on this matter, the public tell us not to sell water utilities, but that is being done, over their heads. That is pretty much what one gets under direct rule, and that demonstrates the need for devolution.

If we have a devolved Assembly, this issue certainly will not be any easier to address, and the situation may not be much better, but at least we will be managing the matter ourselves. At least we will deal with this matter with regard to the priorities that must be considered, rather than have the current situation whereby we go annually to London with a begging bowl for money.

Northern Ireland’s financial situation — not least as a result of 30 years of war — leaves us with a gross Treasury spend of about £16 billion and a tax take of about £10 billion. There is a gap of about £6 billion, and the Treasury and the Government are now telling us that, with the war over, we must be treated in the same way as every other part of the United Kingdom and that we will have to pay a bit more. One of the key ways to address that problem is to increase our tax yield through more business activity, more enterprise, etc. That would allow us to manage our economy well and to pay our bills better. However, Northern Ireland is by no means the only region of the UK that is in the predicament of deficit funding.

The way forward is to manage those matters ourselves through devolution. There are ways and means of addressing the problems. For example, such has been the level of underinvestment that, currently, about 50% of all pumped water is wasted through leaks in pipes. That demonstrates how badly the water system has been maintained over the years. There has been a substantial number of new housing develop­ments, all of which have new water systems installed. It will take years to do the necessary work to address the problems with the old systems that were originally installed.

The last thing that we should do is to sell up and follow the privatisation agenda. When Mo Mowlam was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, she promised on behalf of the Labour Government that there would be no privatisation of the water industry. We must look hard at how we can force the British Government to honour at least one of their promises, and that promise in particular.

Ms Ritchie: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that I have a cold, so I apologise if my diction is not altogether clear. On behalf of the SDLP, I thank Mr Cree for his timely motion. I also thank the parties that have supported the amendment standing in the name of my colleague Mr Alban Maginness.

Successive British Governments have defied collective political and community opinion in Northern Ireland, which voiced clear opposition to new separate charges for water and sewerage. The current Government are no different and have defied the collective political will of this Assembly, the reasoned protestations of the Committee on the Preparation for Government for the deferment of the legislation, and the legal judgement of Mr Justice Weatherup, which clearly demonstrated that the Department for Regional Development had not carried out an adequate and proper consultation with the major stakeholders in respect of the draft legislation. All of that happened in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State and his coterie of Ministers insist that they listen to the collective will of this Assembly, take on board our views and opinions and take on board the views of the wider public, who have voiced opposition to such charges. However, none of that opposition was listened to.

Notwithstanding all of that opposition, water and sewerage charges will be introduced from 1 April 2007. Until we have restoration of our political institutions and a major change in Treasury policy on the management, allocation, and distribution of public finances, our ability to do much about that is gravely restricted.

However, we can lobby strenuously to ensure that the Go-co remains in public ownership; that the necessary regulatory and consumer-protection safeguards are put in place; that the full implications of the draft licence for the operation of the company are made available; that the strategic business plan is made available; and that the privatisation of the public’s assets is resisted at every turn and opportunity.

A cursory look at the Government’s propaganda leaflet of a few weeks ago tells us why we need to pay for water and sewerage services. We all know that it costs money to make water safe to drink and to remove sewage and waste water from our homes, but the leaflet deliberately fails to mention that we already pay for the provision of those services. The Government did not take sufficient steps, over the long period of direct rule, to improve the infrastructure significantly, and now they want the people of Northern Ireland to pay for the infrastructure deficit that, through their serious neglect, they allowed to occur.

Water charges will affect all households, irrespective of income. We will all pay water charges. The Govern­ment have stubbornly refused to take on board the fact that incomes in Northern Ireland do not compare with those in many regions of Great Britain. We pay more for food, electricity, insurance, clothing and energy, yet we earn much less. The Government have obdurately failed to extend the affordability tariff beyond 2010. What will happen to those most in need and those who cannot afford to pay? Water, as has already been said, is essential to our very existence. Water poverty could become a reality for some individuals, like fuel poverty has become, so measures must be taken to address the issue.

Furthermore, the Government have failed to acknowledge that many people who live on or just above the breadline, or who are above the threshold for benefit eligibility, will be forced into poverty through having to pay new, separate water and sewerage charges, combined with a new rates valuation under the review of rating policy. We know that the Government, in their quest to set up a self-financing company, sought to use a billing and debt-recovery mechanism that would have stigmatised people — so much for egalitarian principles.

The draft legislation is now in place. It does not set out a system that is fair, affordable or sustainable. Consumers are expected to pick up the bill for past under-investment and to pay charges based on the capital value of their homes. Political solutions are required in order to address the situation, and we must provide the lead.

There are many questions that the Government should answer. Why did the direct-rule Administration exceed their duties as a temporary caretaker? Why are the Government usurping the role of a future Executive and tying that Executive’s hands for decades to come? Why are there insufficient resources in health and education? Where is the money that we are owed for years of underfunding of our roads, railways and water infrastructure? Where is the money that was specifically given for improvements in our water infrastructure? How much of that was diverted into security? Why are we being forced to pay for direct-rule neglect? Why did the Government recruit consultants, at a cost of over £18 million, to prepare for water reform or privatisation? That money could have been invested in the upgrading of the beleaguered infrastructure. Why did the Government insist on weak regulation in their legislation to govern the work of the regulator? What kind of Government classifies people as “rock bottom”? What an insulting remark to make about many vulnerable, disadvantaged people in Northern Ireland. The British Government should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr Dawson: Does the Member agree that another fundamental question that must be asked is why the Government increased the capital value of the company that is to become the Go-co so that water charges would be increased beyond what is necessary?

Ms Ritchie: I thank the Member for that information — I agree with him. It is all about preparing the Go-co for privatisation, when it will sell off the assets that belong to the people of Northern Ireland. My constituency of South Down supplies a large proportion of the water that the city of Belfast uses. There is no way that we will stand by and allow the public assets of Spelga Dam and the Silent Valley to be sold in order that the fat cats can earn money at our expense. That should not and will not happen. We must resist it.

12.00 noon

Much could be said in this debate. However, as a priority, questions must be asked about the legislation that has already been passed, and much must be done by the Programme for Government Committee. Basically, are the capital value and the standing charge the fairest premise for water charging; is the Treasury and Secretary of State’s financial deal the best one for water customers; is the Go-co the best model; is self-financing the best system; and is the charge fair, affordable and sustainable?

The draft strategic, estate and management plans must be published. How on earth was legislation enacted before those plans were published and before there was any consultation on them? The reason is that people are trying to bring in privatisation by the back door.

The full impact of the governance and the licence must be revealed — what is in public ownership must remain in that domain. Full authorisation and enforce­ment must pass to the regulator next April, and there must be no exceptions. Concrete arrangements must be put in place to make it a duty for the Go-co to consult the Consumer Council on all matters that impact on consumers. Above all, we need a first-class water and sewerage infrastructure, which should have been provided over a long period of time — the local community should not have been forced to pay for it. Notwith­standing that, we must ensure that rigorous and robust measures are put in place to protect the people whom we represent and all consumers in Northern Ireland.

Lest we forget, the majority of people in Northern Ireland have indicated their opposition to the imposition of new water and sewerage charges. We should not forget also that there will be two charges — a water charge and a sewerage charge — and that will particularly affect city and town dwellers.

Mr McCarthy: I support the proposal and amendment No 2. Members may recall that, a few years ago, the cross-channel Minister Lord Dubs told us that an increase of £70 per household per year would make up the necessary water and sewerage investment required for Northern Ireland for years to come. That amount was included in the regional rate at that time.

That same Labour Government are now ignoring that investment and are screwing householders in Northern Ireland with a new, separate, diabolical and disgusting charge for water and sewerage. I call it a tap tax. This is the biggest con perpetrated by any Government. It is deceitful and fraudulent. The Labour Government are being downright dishonest, and they should hang their heads in shame. Of course, the Government are not alone as regards this shameful new tap tax; some blame must be placed on the Executive in the previous Northern Ireland Assembly.

It all started when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown landed at Belfast City Airport with a bag full of money and were greeted by the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The Alliance Party was sceptical of that bag of goodies and said so. We knew that the money was not a gift and would have to be repaid by the people of Northern Ireland. The chickens have now come home to roost at a dreadful cost. I recall a Member of the same Executive coming out of a posh hotel in Belfast and telling us that if we wanted services we would have to pay for them.

I give credit to David Trimble, who was First Minister at the time, for his efforts in the House of Lords last week. After having given their commitment to support Mr Trimble, the Tory Lords, including some from Northern Ireland, stabbed him in the back.

As I said, tap taxes are only a front for handing control of the water and sewerage services to the highest bidder. That may not happen today, but it will happen in the days ahead. Every Member who has spoken in the debate has stated that that is a process of privatisation. That process is wrong.

Some local people are saying that this Assembly is being delayed deliberately from getting back to work so that the London Government can introduce all those iniquitous schemes that will cost our constituents dearly. At the same time, our local, new Executive can wash their hands of those schemes and absolve themselves of any blame for draining constituents of their hard-earned cash.

We have any God’s amount of water in this country — some people say that we have far too much. Of course, nothing comes free; we all pay income tax, rates and so forth each week and month. The solution is to simply manage resources better. As I said earlier, we pay already for water and sewerage services through the regional rate. That point has been made repeatedly in the Chamber this morning. We should check out Lord Dubs’s efforts a few years ago. Why have we been treated differently from people in Scotland? They got a green dowry to put their services in order, and the rate was increased slightly so that those who earn can pay their way, and, where necessary, other less-fortunate people get an allowance.

This new charge is nothing short of a tap tax. The Government have been deceitful, fraudulent and hypocritical in asking people to pay on the value of their homes. Conservation of water is not mentioned at all, despite the fact that the European directive was supposed to be about conserving water.

I refer to a conversation that Shaun Woodward had some time ago with a meeting of cross-party Assembly Members. In that meeting, he threw down the gauntlet and told them that they will have the powers to repeal those charges. I challenge those parties to make that an election pledge: as soon as a working Executive is established, their first priority should be the repeal of the iniquitous tap tax.

Mr A Maginness: I shall be brief. I want to thank Assembly colleagues for supporting the amendment. In particular, I thank Mr Cree for supporting it, and I also thank Sinn Féin’s Raymond McCartney for his support.

The amendment reflects a general consensus that exists in the House. That consensus opposes the legislation, which has been passed in Westminster. It also supports in great measure the community’s opposition to privatisation, and it also gives positive support to the disadvantaged, who will find that any water charging is a heavy burden. It is important that a strong and clear message goes from this House to the people of Northern Ireland and, particularly, to the British Government that a clear consensus across all the parties — and across the community — rejects the Government’s proposals and legislation. That consensus also rejects the introduction in the near future of water charging.

Mr Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

When I spoke earlier, I said that our party would withdraw the amendment. Mr Cree’s motion and Mr Maginness’s amendment cover the points that we would have wished to make.

It is good to see cross-party support in total opposition to water charges. Members have made the point about the impact that those charges will have on poverty levels in the North of Ireland. We all realise that there is a great fear of privatisation. The Department for Regional Development’s consultation process has been exposed — by the General Consumer Council, in particular. It is to be supported in its efforts to ensure that any future consultation process will be efficient and effective.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Go raibh maith agat.

Amendment No 1, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Beggs: I am pleased that Leslie Cree has brought this motion to the Floor of the House today, and I thank Alban Maginness for his constructive amendment. It is also helpful that there is a degree of cross-community support gathering around the issue of water charges. If we speak as a united group, we have a much better chance of influencing change.

Under direct rule, our water services have suffered from 30 years of underinvestment. Northern Ireland Office Ministers frequently diverted funds towards security budgets. That was perhaps most evident with regard to in-year allocations. Instead of money being made available for water services, schools or the Health Service, it was moved to overextended security budgets. In England and Wales, the upgrade of water services was largely funded by the green dowry. Although Northern Ireland received £50 million a year for that purpose, that money disappeared into the block grant; it was not directed to the Water Service. Consequently, there has been a lack of investment, and it is unfair that Northern Ireland consumers should be expected to pick up the tab at this stage.

My colleague Leslie Cree mentioned a number of unsatisfactory issues with regard to the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, in particular the lack of clarity and the governance arrangements, which makes the amendment in the name of Alban Maginness most appropriate. It refers to the absence of a strategic business plan, of asset and estate management plans, and of final licence details. Why have those been kept secret?

There is inadequate regulation, particularly in the first number of years. That is especially relevant with regard to the sale of any surplus assets that the new Go-co will determine. Of even greater concern is the fact that Lord Rooker, in the course of the debate in the House of Lords, indicated that, in the first three years, there will be a general authorisation for those sales. Why has the regulator’s role been limited during that period?

The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, which has campaigned actively on behalf of consumers, has highlighted that it does not agree with OFREG’s assertion that it has the necessary consumer protection powers in law, particularly in the crucial three years leading up to 2010, when customers will be expected to take on the full cost of water and sewerage services.

Interestingly, in responding, I suspect, to that comment, the regulator, Mr Osborne, stated in an email that emerged during the course of the General Consumer Council’s action in the High Court:

“If DRD think I am happy, they are deaf and stupid. Will step up the volume further next week. Perhaps they are not truthful.”

There are a number of issues that give the public serious cause for concern in the light of comments from the General Consumer Council and from the regulator. I suspect that Mr Osborne would rather that some of those comments had not been made public. However, there is deep concern in the community about the Government’s proposals.

There are two other aspects of the Go-co, which was opposed by the Ulster Unionist Party, that I wish to address. A Go-co is defined as a company that is initially publicly owned but destined to be privatised. In England and Wales, water companies have a commercial value, and that is demonstrated in the stock market. That is why they often change hands in takeovers.

12.15 pm

Initially, the stock market was not interested in such a proposal for Northern Ireland because of the huge holes in our infrastructure and the potential for fines falling on consumers. Essentially, its concerns were that suitable returns could not be achieved. Is the Government, by the back door, through limiting the role of the regulator, creating freedom and opportunity for private sector investment during that initial period? That is a matter of deep public concern.

During the legal action taken by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, a senior civil servant was quoted as saying in a memorandum that the Treasury was pushing for a minority shareholding to be sold to the private sector, and that the Treasury wanted the new body to be sold off before 2008. He went on to say that there would be limited restrictions on sales of assets.

There is real and genuine concern in the community about this. Is this good for the public? I suspect not. Perhaps profit is being created to attract that private sector minority shareholding interest within the next three years. That is not in the public interest and it is not in the interests of Northern Ireland consumers or ratepayers.

The new dividends demanded by Treasury are also causing concern. In Northern Ireland that dividend has been calculated at a value of 5·8% of the assets — initially, £58 million a year will be returned to the Treasury. Why is the dividend set at 5·1% in England and Wales, and, interestingly, at 4·1% in Scotland? Why are Northern Ireland consumers being asked to pay over the odds as regards the dividend to the Treasury? There are several areas of concern, and I urge Members to come together and support the motion as amended by Alban Maginness.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the Government’s unacceptable proposals and legislation for the introduction of separate water charges in Northern Ireland, deplores the Secretary of State’s refusal to heed the Programme for Government Committee’s call for deferment of the Water and Sewerage Services Order, and believes that in the absence of a known Strategic Business Plan, Asset and Estate Management Plans, final licence details, adequate regulation or due consumer protection, the public can place no reliance on the figures which Ministers are indicating for future water charges and awaits a report from the Programme for Government Committee.

The sitting was suspended at 12.18 pm.

On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Implementation of Bamford Review

Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for the debate, with the Member who moves the motion having 15 minutes to speak and all other Members who speak having 10 minutes. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The amendments will be proposed in the order on which they appear on the list. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question that each amendment be made in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall not put the question on amendment No 2. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Mr McCarthy: I beg to move

That this Assembly accepts the findings of the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland) and calls on the Ministers responsible for all appropriate departments to take immediate steps to implement its recommendations.

I declare a real interest in the contents of the Bamford Review in that we have a 37-year-old daughter with profound learning difficulties, and my family and I know about all the problems surrounding mental health, as do hundreds of other families throughout Northern Ireland.

We want the best services available, be it in health, education, housing, respite care or whatever. For too long, mental health, well-being and learning disabilities have been the Cinderella of all statutory agencies. That must stop now. Everyone in society is entitled to equality and life, and if the Assembly supports my motion today, we will have played our part in bringing a better quality of life to a great many people.

I also serve on a cross-party group on mental health, and I put on record my sincere thanks to the other Assembly Members who work closely together to get the best for their constituents. I offer thanks to the Northern Ireland Association of Mental Health, to Alan Ferguson, Graham Logan and everyone in University Street for their help and co-operation on every level.

In October 2002, the Health Department initiated a major wide-ranging and independent review of the law, policy and provision affecting people with mental health needs or a learning disability in Northern Ireland. Four years of hard work have now largely been completed, and I sincerely thank those involved for their dedication.

The Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability is the most significant and comprehensive review of mental health services and learning disabilities ever undertaken in Northern Ireland. The review has been overseen by a steering committee comprising representatives from professional and other interest groups in the mental health and learning disability fields. Much of the review’s work has been carried forward through 10 expert working committees, which have presented their reports with recommendations for the modernisation of mental health services in Northern Ireland. There is a paper, not a report, on autism spectrum disorder.

It is vital that the recommendations stemming from the review are implemented to the fullest extent. The review was under the chairmanship of Prof David Bamford of the University of Ulster until his untimely death in January 2006. It would be remiss of me if I did not refer to the debt that the review owes to David Bamford. He was an excellent leader and a real professional in his work.

The subsequent and vital impact on services would be a fitting tribute to his life and work. It was in recognition of Prof Bamford’s contribution to the work of the review that the then Minister of Health, Shaun Woodward, agreed to the request from Prof Roy McClelland and his colleagues that the review be recognised formally as the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability (Northern Ireland). Prof Roy McClelland took over the reins of leadership at that time, and I sincerely thank him and his team for their continuing work.

The review took into account recent policies and other developments here and in the rest of the EU. It sought to address how best to provide services to people with special mental health needs or learning disabilities, in accordance with the statutory equality obligations of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998, while considering how to promote their social inclusion.

The review also sought to address how to promote positive mental health in society by analysing the relevance of key concepts such as community education and promoting mental health awareness. It undertook research to facilitate its work, and it has set out examples of best practice that are available regionally, nationally and internationally.

The review has come to fruition with most of the reports now complete. It has been a mammoth task, and the steering committee and expert working groups involved deserve great credit for what they have accomplished.

‘Equal Lives: Review of Policy and Services for People with a Learning Disability in Northern Ireland’ is a report that deals primarily with people with learning disabilities. The needs of that group are different to those who have mental health problems. It is vital that the recommendations contained in the report are considered on their own merits.

There are more people with a learning disability in Northern Ireland than there are in any other region in these islands, and the numbers are likely to increase by around 20% in the next 15 years. Investment in new styles of services has not kept pace with changing needs and aspirations. There are more people living in long-stay hospitals and residential homes, and those accommodations provide poor value for money. We have many fewer places in supported accommodation, hence families have to continue caring for longer. Almost one third of family carers in Northern Ireland are single parents, and they are mainly widows aged 65 years or over.

People with a learning disability do not have the same opportunities as their peers as regards further education, vocational training and paid work. The ‘Equal Lives’ document contains 74 recommendations to take forward its vision for the future. To maximise the impact of change, it will be essential to progress each of the objectives in parallel. Although some recommendations will not require funding, they will require considerable investment of planning time from staff and will also have to be introduced incrementally.

The ‘Equal Lives’ document sets out an ambitious programme for change, with a clear policy direction for people with a learning disability. The values and objectives of that review should form the benchmarks by which future policy and service developments should be measured. It is incumbent on Government Depart-ments to move without delay towards establishing the implementation arrangements necessary to underpin the new vision for improving the life chances of all people with a learning disability, and the lives of their families.

On 31 October 2006, the Bamford Review formally closed at the ‘Making it Happen’ conference in the Stormont Hotel in Belfast. Prof Roy McClelland, chairman of the review, declared that the baton for the reform and modernisation of mental services must be handed over to the politicians.

The onus is on the Government to ensure that the Bamford Review’s recommendations are implemented. I call on the Government and the Members here to think mental health and to think learning disabilities. It will be our responsibility to make it happen in what will be, I hope, a devolved Assembly on 26 March 2007. It is a major responsibility. The mental health of our citizens and future citizens depends on the implementation of the recommendations, and on us.

There is an inherent danger that the Government will do nothing more than pay lip-service to the review and leave it on the shelf to gather dust.

We must not allow that to happen. I call on my fellow Members to agree that mental health and the implications of the Bamford Review be afforded the highest importance in a newly devolved Assembly, and that a major priority for the Assembly be the imple-mentation of the review’s recommendations. The review has done its job. The future mental health of all our citizens is in the hands of their elected represent-atives in the Assembly. It is up to the Assembly to grasp that opportunity and ensure that the Government take action on the set of recommendations with which they have been presented. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr McCarthy: How will the recommendations be implemented? The review goes one step further and provides a briefing paper titled ‘Reform and Modern-isation of Mental Health Services and Learning Disability’.

There is a need for a new vision, prioritisation of the mental health of the people of Northern Ireland and a refocusing on the needs of those with mental ill health and learning disability. The strategic priorities road map identifies several key issues, which include the promotion of positive mental health and the prevention of mental ill health as a priority for the entire community; reform and modernisation of mental health services; and the need for a person-centred approach that values people with a learning disability as citizens, and that enables them to use mainstream services and be included fully in the life of the community. Anything less is totally unacceptable.

The recommendations demand a multi-sectoral approach. The danger of siloing them into the health portfolio must be avoided. There are clear and important implications for all Departments, including the Depart-ment of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Social Develop-ment. The implementation of the Bamford Review’s recommendations necessitates adequate resources. The review recommends doubling the present spend on mental health services and learning disability from approximately £300 million to £600 million over 15 to 20 years. I call on my fellow Members to agree that a percentage of the peace dividend moneys should be soundly ring-fenced for the implementation of the Bamford Review.

Mr S Wilson: Given that, to date, the peace dividend money has amounted to nothing, a percentage of nothing will not help the situation.

Mr McCarthy: I suspect that the Member, when he is negotiating with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, is in a position to squeeze as much as he can out of them.

The Government must draw up a comprehensive post-Bamford action plan to oversee the necessary step change. At the Bamford Review’s ‘Making it Happen’ conference on 31 October 2006, Minister Paul Goggins highlighted the important role of a new champion for mental health. He said:

“I want mental health and learning disability to move to the top table of the health service.”

Members will agree with that 100%.

Minister Goggins continued:

“We need someone to champion its cause, and fight for the new services that people need. I am pleased to announce that the new post of Director for Mental Health and Learning Disability has been advertised today. This person will be crucial in taking forward the Government’s response to the Bamford review.”

The Minister also highlighted the fact that the Government would have to take action as a result of the review when he said:

“Many of the review’s recommendations impact not only on health and social care, but on all public services in Northern Ireland, including education, employment, training, housing and social security benefits. I have decided, therefore to establish an Inter-Departmental Task Force to oversee the whole Government response to the review.”

At least Paul Goggins is committed. Those are encouraging words from him. However, there must also be action. It is up to the Assembly to ensure that the Government adhere to the strategic priorities for the implementation of the report. I call on the Assembly to think mental health, to think learning disability, and to give the motion the support that it deserves.

Dr McCrea: Although it is true that the Minister has said some fine words, and has made an announce-ment about appointing a champion for mental health, without providing the finances that are needed to back up those fine words, all the words of the day will not solve the problem. Does the Member agree?

2.15 pm

Mr McCarthy: I absolutely agree. The major disappointment of the conference in the Stormont Hotel was that although the Minister said many fine words, he did not say that there would be any extra funding. It is up to us, as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to fight for that, and I am sure that we will. Every Member knows people who have mental health problems or learning disabilities. For too long the mental health services have been the Cinderella services of Northern Ireland, so I ask Members to give their full support to the motion.

Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCarthy: Yes.

Madam Speaker: I am sorry, Mr Wilson, but Mr McCarthy has finished.

Mr S Wilson: But he gave way.

Madam Speaker: According to our clocks, he was in his last minute of speaking time.

Please be quick, Mr Wilson.

Mr S Wilson: The Member raised a lot of issues and mentioned that the necessary finance is not available to address all the issues. To which of the priorities identified in the Bamford Review does he think that the Assembly should give priority?

Mr McCarthy: As I said at the start, I have personal experience of learning disabilities, as my 37-year-old daughter has learning difficulties, so I would certainly choose that issue. However, mental health covers suicide, self-harm and other issues, and we all want a fair share of the money that is available.

Mr McElduff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you make a ruling on the use or non-use of mobile phones during debates in the Chamber?

Madam Speaker: Mr McElduff, I do not need to make a ruling. It is convention that a Member should not have a mobile phone on — especially if the Member is a Chief Whip.

Mr Adams: Maith thú, a Cheann Comhairle.

I beg to move amendment No 1: At end insert

“; calls on the Programme for Government Committee to ensure that the required extra financial investment in services as identified by the Bamford Review is included in the discussions for a financial package for a new Executive; and further calls for the full resourcing and immediate implementation of all the recommendations of the Bamford Review in relation to suicide and self harm.”

I think that we will get support from the Benches opposite for this amendment, because it deals with some of the issues that our Friends have raised.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go n-aontaím le Kieran McCarthy, nó is ceist an-tábhachtach í an cheist seo, go háirithe ceist an fhéinmharaithe.

I want to deal specifically with the issue of suicide and how the Bamford Review recommends that we should begin to deal with this dreadful scourge. Our colleague John O’Dowd will deal with the background, breadth, undertakings and implications of the Bamford Review.

Suicide is the biggest killer of our young people, and although young men are statistically at the highest risk of suicide, the problem transcends gender, age, class, ethnic background and religion. The suicide rate in my constituency of West Belfast is over twice the regional average — and the rate in North Belfast follows closely. The Bamford Review quite rightly points out that the challenge that we face in addressing the issue of mental health promotion requires action at personal, public and political levels. It recognises that suicide prevention is an integral part of mental health promotion and further recommends that suicide prevention be made a public health priority.

In the last year, a suicide strategy, ‘Protect Life: A Shared Vision’, has been launched for the Six Counties. The development of this strategy is in no small measure attributable to the campaign of the families and friends of those bereaved through suicide.

I mo cheantar féin tá barraíocht daoine — fir agus mná óga go háirithe — ag cur láimhe ina mbás féin. Is fadhb ollmhór í, agus caithfidh muid a bheith soiléir faoi sin ag gach leibhéal sa chomhphobal.

As MP for West Belfast, I am honoured and humbled to be in a position to work with many families from West Belfast, the Shankill, North Belfast and beyond in their campaign to achieve the aims of this strategy. This Assembly and the Executive must make tackling suicide and self-harm a priority.

I would be surprised if there were Members in the Chamber who have not been touched by the scourge of suicide within their broader family circles. One only has to talk to any of the families, friends, parents, partners, or siblings who have lost a loved one through suicide to understand the devastating impact that it has on our communities. When we talk to families, we also realise just how inadequate our society and our health services are in dealing with suicide and its impact. As political representatives, we must rectify that. That includes rising to the challenges set by the Bamford Review.

Bhuail mé le daoine ó theaghlaigh atá fágtha i ndiaidh duine féinmharú a dhéanamh, agus caithfidh mé a rá go raibh mé an-tógtha faoina ndóigh. Caithfidh muid a bheith cinnte go ndéanfaidh muid ár seacht ndícheall le cuidiú leo i gcibé dóigh ar féidir linn.

All of us must play our part in the destigmatisation of mental health problems. We must challenge the so-called macho culture that exists in our society, and which leaves many of our young people feeling that the only option they have left in the world is to end their own lives. However, challenging that culture is not enough. We must ensure that when people seek help, the services exist to help them. Services must be there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, because the problems that cause a sense of hope-lessness do not end at 5.00 pm or take the weekend off. Services must be tailored to suit the needs of our people.

I and other Members have heard many families express total disbelief at how their loved ones sought help from the statutory services only to be denied treatment, put on a waiting list, or — worse still — ignored by some uncaring, or perhaps overworked, service providers. That cannot be allowed to happen again.

The Bamford Review rightly states that we need more community-based services, more psychiatric nurses, more psychiatrists and more psychologists. All of that requires funding, planning and the political will to implement the report. Sinn Féin is doing its best to secure the increased funding that is required to provide the type of services envisaged by the Bamford Review.

I am committed to doing all that I can to ensure that the issue of suicide prevention is addressed in a strategic manner. I appeal for all-party support for families who have been bereaved through suicide. We owe a huge debt of thanks to those bereaved families who have made a real difference in raising awareness, as well as in securing more resources. We must also acknowledge the very hard work of the healthcare professionals who, with poor resources, have also done their best. They too deserve our gratitude. They and the affected families need this issue to be given the proper political priority. They need Members to ensure that the proper resources, funding, training and staff are available.

Both of the elected Chambers of this island must act together. Suicide is a problem throughout Ireland. In 2003-04, there were 577 deaths by suicide. Official records for 2005-06 show that the number of such deaths has risen — a total of 645 people across Ireland ended their lives through suicide during that period. Those figures do not take into account those who have tried to take their own lives and failed, or those cases that were not reported.

The number of deaths by suicide exceeds the number of road deaths. This is a national disaster and it requires a national disaster plan. That is why Sinn Féin has called for suicide prevention strategies North and South to be integrated into an island-wide programme, and for this issue to be given governmental priority by the North/South Ministerial Council.

Tá mé cinnte — agus tá daoine eile anseo cinnte fosta — go mbeadh Rialtas na Breataine ag déanamh i bhfad níos mó dá mbeadh an líon céanna daoine ag fáil bháis sa Bhreatain.

If that many people in Britain were losing their lives through suicide, the British Government would take more action than it has here thus far.

The Government in London do not have the political will to implement and fund the recommendations of the Bamford Review, so it is up to us, the representatives in this Chamber, to do that job.

Tá Sinn Féin ag obair le grúpaí ar fud an oileáin seo agus ar fud na sé chontae, nó is fadhb í an féinmharú in achan áit in Éirinn. Tá cúpla focal scoir agam i dtaca leis an ábhar.

Sinn Féin’s 2006 health policy document, ‘Healthcare in an Ireland of Equals’, identified suicide as a distinct priority area, requiring concentrated co-operation between the Governments, the health services, the voluntary sector and the communities — in other words, a multi-agency approach. We continue to lobby for and support those affected by suicide to ensure that that becomes a reality.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

We all have to co-operate. We have to work together no matter what our differences are. The current rate of suicide is a national crisis, which needs a national, united, joined-up approach. The communities that we represent, especially our young people, deserve nothing less. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Mrs D Kelly: I beg to move amendment No 2: At end insert

“supported by adequate financial and other resources.”

I thank Mr McCarthy for moving the motion. The reason for our amendment is to ensure that additional finances and resources will be provided and that the Minister is left with no doubt about what is required. I acknowledge that there is little difference between our amendment and the one tabled by Sinn Féin.

The SDLP welcomes the findings of the Bamford Review and congratulates all those who participated in it. The review represents a comprehensive analysis of current mental health and learning disability services and provides a vision for future service delivery. It has long been recognised that both of these services suffer from chronic underfunding, and the Bamford Review continually refers to that deficit.

I attended the ministerial launch of the review a few weeks ago, and, like practically all of the attendees, I was astounded that the Minister failed to acknowledge that the implementation of the review would require additional financial investment and other resources. No new moneys are available for mental health and learning disability, yet the Civil Service practice of employing consultants continues unabated.

We heard this morning that over £18 million was spent by the Water Service on consultancy fees alone — money that could and should have been spent on service delivery, whether in health, education or housing. Finances, and other resources such as staff, are already overstretched. My colleague, the Member for South Belfast Mrs Hanna, will speak compre-hensively to the motion. I shall deal primarily with the recommendations in relation to child and adolescent mental health services.

According to the 2001 census, 451,514 people in Northern Ireland — 27% of a population of 1·7 million people — are under 18 years of age, and 398,056 people — 23% of the population — are under 16 years of age. Those figures were published by OFMDFM in 2004, yet the Bamford Review found that there has been no comprehensive study of child mental health. Instead, we have to rely on research conducted in England and elsewhere.

In Great Britain, it has been shown that 30% to 40% of young people may at some time experience a mental health problem, while up to 20% will have been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. As Members know, however, Northern Ireland has higher levels of socio-economic deprivation. We are also emerging from conflict and continue, sadly, to be a deeply divided society. Children and young people are inevitably affected and influenced by community tension and can be directly caught up in violence.

Furthermore, we are all acutely aware of the alarming rise in the number of young people who are becoming alcohol-dependent. It is not uncommon to hear of children as young as 12 years of age consuming alcohol. Substance abuse is also increasing. What does this say about how our society protects its young? It is important to note that Northern Ireland has a higher overall prevalence of mental illness of a magnitude estimated at 25% higher than that in England.

2.30 pm

Although that refers to rates in the adult population, it can be assumed that rates in children are similarly higher than in England. The Bamford Review noted that, at its lowest estimate, approximately 45,000 children and young people aged between five and 15 years will have a moderate to severe mental health disorder and require intervention from specialist child mental health services, while 340 children and young people will require inpatient services.

No specialist residential facility exists for those 340 children and young people: shame on the Minister, and shame on the Department. Meanwhile, young people with learning disabilities, and their carers, find it harder to avail of appropriate therapeutic interventions and environments than adult sufferers.

Physiotherapy graduates cannot find employment in Northern Ireland. Currently, many must go to the US, Australia and New Zealand to practice. I must declare an interest, as a former occupational therapist. According to the Bamford Review, there are no occupational therapists in the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), yet the waiting lists for these therapies remain unacceptably long — in my con-stituency, it takes over 18 months to get a first appoint-ment — at a time when personal development is of the utmost import.

Suicide levels and instances of self-harm continue to be a huge concern. I welcome the establishment of a Regional Suicide Task Force. However, that is only part of an overall series of recommendations.

The Bamford Review clearly and correctly acknowledged the need to integrate health, social and educational services for children and young people in particular, but also for wider society.

The Minister must ensure that the actions set out in the report are followed as swiftly as possible, and provide adequate financial and staffing resources to do so. The Bamford Review recognises that staffing levels are inadequate to meet even present requirements. Failure to implement the review will condemn thousands of the young, and their carers, to a bleak future, and will represent a high cost to society. I support the amendment.

Mrs I Robinson: There is a lot of work to be done to lift mental health higher up the Northern Ireland political agenda, and as various Members have stressed, there is good reason to pursue that course. A Member asked which area of mental health should be prioritised. In my view, there is no area that could be singled out for priority. All areas in this sector are crucial and are crying out for help.

According to the World Health Organization, more than 19% of the total burden of disease in Western European countries is attributable to mental illness, compared with 17% for cardiovascular disease, and 16% for cancer. It found no other health condition responsible for more than 8% of disease.

Statistics show that the prevalence of mental health problems in Northern Ireland is 25% higher than in England, yet the share of the health and personal social services budget that is spent on mental health in England is 11·8%, compared to 9·3% in Northern Ireland. Based on the 2003 figures, to match the English share, spending on mental health in Northern Ireland would have to be increased by 26%, or £60 million.

It is now possible to estimate the cost of not promoting mental health. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health (NIAMH), estimated that the total cost of mental health to the Northern Ireland economy was £3 billion for 2002-03. Their research applies and adapts analysis methods used by the Sainsbury centre that are now accepted and quoted by Ministers.

Effective mental health promotion is essential. Better services are required for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, within a clear framework to promote positive mental health and to reduce stigma. We must invest more in mental health promotion. Northern Ireland must have a comprehensive and sustained mental health promotion campaign. That was highlighted in the Bamford Review, and in par