Northern Ireland Assembly
Tuesday 25 September 2001 (continued)
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Please draw your remarks to a close.
Ms Lewsley:
A bill of rights is just that - a bill of rights. I support the amendment.
Mr S Wilson:
I support the motion.
Many people will find it odd that the Ulster Unionist Party complained last week about the Patten report. It said that its members on the board would not be bound by Patten and the police legislation, because it was not what they understood would be in the agreement. At the start of the week, the UUP drew up a motion, which has yet to be put before the House, to exclude Sinn Féin, because it had been conned on the issue of letting terrorists into Government with their guns. Today the party tells us that it has been conned about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. To get it wrong once is bad, twice is disastrous, but a third time is criminal.
Those people said that they had negotiated a good agreement, and they sold it to the people of Northern Ireland on that basis. Today's motion, which we shall be supporting, is a sad indictment of the job that was done when the Belfast Agreement was signed.
Those who oppose the motion have not dealt with the essence of the complaints that were made. Instead, they have pointed the finger and implied that anyone who supports the motion is against human rights.
I listened to David Ervine's remarks. All his attention was directed at the Unionist Benches. I did not stay to listen to the regular rant from Mary Nelis, but I can guess what she said about human rights. The organisation with which she is identified is totally immersed in a culture of denial of human rights. However, the House did not hear one word about that hypocrisy from David Ervine. All his ire was directed at those who support the motion.
Given the commission's remit and membership, did anyone really expect anything more than a liberal-left, politically-correct, Nationalist-driven agenda? As one commentator remarked, the commission was Mo Mowlam's parting two fingers to the Unionist community. According to a parliamentary answer, six members of the commission were members of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), a Nationalist front organisation. What else can be expected from that? We have seen its actions here.
The Human Rights Commission has become the voice of the villain. Its representatives appeared before the Assembly to talk about extra powers for the police to investigate the financial irregularities of criminals. Without even having seen the code of practice - the commission admitted that it had not seen it - they recommended that it needed changing to protect the criminal.
There have been complaints about the commission's lack of money. However, there was no lack of money when it came to protecting the Omagh bombers. The commission has taken two cases to court. One action sought to protect the identities of the Omagh bombers from being broadcast on 'Panorama'. The other case went to the High Court to enhance the powers of the commission and allow it to intervene in third-party cases.
What we have seen from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which the document shows, is a desire to extend its powers. For example, if someone complains that a hospital or school closure impinges on their human rights, the commission wants the power to take such a case to court and for the judge to overrule decisions made by elected Members of the Assembly. In fact, at a recent meeting to discuss extra powers, the commission wanted powers to enter properties, seize documents et cetera. It wanted to become another Special Branch, only with more powers. It is right not to give the commission extra powers. The one way to put a rein on the commission is to use an economic stranglehold and not give it any more money.
Dr O'Hagan:
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We must question the reason behind the motion and its timing, given that the consultation process on the bill of rights is ongoing. The consultation process, which was launched in March 2000, has seen 11 different pamphlets distributed. Nine independent advisory groups were set up, 400 educators were trained, and educational videos and manuals were produced. The commission invited independent speakers, who included the president of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. A total of 230 submissions have been received and 22 public meetings have taken place.
Given all that, why did the Ulster Unionist Party not raise its concerns and contribute to that process?
Dr Birnie:
Will the Member give way?
Dr O'Hagan:
No, I have only five minutes.
It makes one wonder whether Unionists are using the motion not only to attack the commission, but to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement and to produce a commission that they can influence.
The Good Friday Agreement envisaged a far-reaching bill of rights that extended protection beyond the two communities to cover all communities, including ethnic minorities. It was to cover rights that would reflect and address the North of Ireland's particular circumstances. Those rights include socio-economic rights, children's rights, the rights of the elderly and women's rights. Furthermore, it was to be a free-standing bill of rights that built on, and went further than, international instruments. It is pertinent to ask just what Unionists are afraid of. Human rights are not about Nationalist or Unionist rights, they are about the rights of every single individual in this society.
The amendment, which my party is supporting, states that the commission has been hindered in discharging its remit due to limits on its powers and resources. That is absolutely correct. It has been stated here - in a different way, of course - that the commission is not representative. Yes, it is not representative. Catholics, women and Nationalists are under-represented, and there are no representatives from the ethnic minorities, from people with disabilities or from the gay and lesbian community - in fact, from all the groups covered by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The draft bill of rights produced by the commission does not go far enough. It fails, for example, to recognise specifically the rights of political ex-prisoners. The British Government failed to fund the Human Rights Commission adequately at an early stage. The commission has been unable to function effectively because it has been undermined from the start by lack of resources and by the failure of the British Government to give it the necessary powers, such as those of subpoena and discovery.
2.45 pm
The commission was further curtailed by Lord Justice Carswell's finding that it did not have the powers to intervene in cases as a third party, or amicus curiae. The British Government has failed to legislate to give those powers to the Human Rights Commission; powers similar to those held by other non-governmental organisations. Indeed, the commission is not governed by the Paris Principles, the guidelines followed by all human rights organisations throughout the world.
The Secretary of State has still not acted on the commission's report of February 2001 despite that report's recommendations on the changes required to improve its effectiveness.
Much more needs to be done in the field of human rights, particularly regarding the representativeness of the Human Rights Commission. However, we must applaud the commission's work so far, despite its inadequacies and lack of resources.
Most of Mr Poots comments were disgraceful, but those concerning blood donations, in particular, were shameful to the House. It was an attack on people who suffer from AIDS, haemophilia and hepatitis. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the backward thinking among so many people in this society.
Mr Armstrong:
Everyone is entitled to human rights, but things have to be fair and equal. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has failed to propose recommendations in line with its remit. The Belfast Agreement charged the commission with advising and consulting with the UK Government on additional human rights, which could be introduced by law to further safeguard the identity and ethos of both communities.
The commission has done its bit in keeping open the constitutional debate by mentioning Northern Ireland's competing and equally legitimate aspirations. The commission has been set up by the British Government and must provide society with equal human rights for all people in Northern Ireland in the context of the United Kingdom. The consultation document mentions self- determination, but not the principle of consent, which was endorsed under the Belfast Agreement.
The bill of rights aims to promote mutual tolerance and respect among all sections of the community. However, the commission fails to be pragmatic about the reality. A bill of rights will not remove the main threat to human rights that prevails in our society - that posed by Sinn Féin/IRA, which still holds on to arms.
The report also deals with the rights of young people. The House will know that the main threat to them comes from bully boys whose actions are directed by paramilitary organisations. The commission fails to mention that. Our young people need to be adequately protected by law from punishment beatings and from drug pushers.
Regarding the issue of job equality, the best person should get the job. We must safeguard an employer's right to choose the type of person that he wants to employ. That is not sufficiently recognised by the bill of rights recommendations.
The document spent much time stressing past crimes of the state in dealing with terrorist violence. However, a vital omission from the document is that the state has a legitimate monopoly in the use of force. That principle defines a state. Safeguards must be adhered to. However, the state's hands must not be tied in discharging its legitimate function of ensuring law and order.
The Human Rights Commission has not safeguarded the culture of the majority of the population. It is now politically incorrect for people of my culture to celebrate or express beliefs. That was not addressed. Human rights are weak on that issue.
The Human Rights Commission has proven to be spineless, with a false view of our world. Our world is not ideal, and it is futile to think that the commission can create a perfect society. It has failed to adopt a balanced approach to the establishment of human rights. It has undermined many valuable traditional institutions in our society, which include the sanctity of marriage. Its view is contrary to the distinct nature of Northern Ireland's society. Therefore the commission has ignored its remit and offered a series of proposals that would offend most people in Northern Ireland.
I realise that the rights of the minority should be protected. However, in its efforts to please the minority, the commission has forgotten about the majority.
Mr A Maginness:
Even by the House's standards, this has been one of the most dispiriting and disappointing debates to date. I hope to enliven it and raise the standard a little bit. I was deeply depressed by the speeches from the Unionist Benches. David Ervine went to the heart of the issue: the Unionist parties, and sadly the Ulster Unionist Party in particular, seem to have no confidence in human rights. They seem to have a negative reaction to human rights. They see it as the preserve of the Nationalist, Republican or Catholic community - something that does not belong to them.
However, that is not reflected in the community. I refer, in particular, to the Protestant community. Some 215 organisations ranging from Age Concern to the Tullyalley Community Association contributed to the Human Rights Commission's deliberations. Those organisations reflect a wide spectrum of Northern Ireland society. Ordinary people in the Unionist or Protestant community have a belief in human rights and have confidence in the Human Rights Commission. I cannot understand why a party that is committed to the Good Friday Agreement cannot embrace the concept of human rights and support the body that has been set up to advance human rights in Northern Ireland.
I am told that the Human Rights Commission has gone outside its terms of reference. The terms state, as Mr McCartney - and I notice he never stays to the end of the debate - rightly said, that
"the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and - taken together with the ECHR - to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland."
I cannot see how the commission has gone outside its terms of reference. The Human Rights Commission has faithfully discharged its duty under its terms of reference. It has produced a draft bill of human rights for people's considerations. It is a consultative document; there is nothing here that the document says must be included in the Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Commission is providing its own suggestions, as we;; as those from a wide range of organisations and people in the community.
What is wrong with that? How can that offend anybody in the Chamber. Unionist or Nationalist? The Human Rights Commission has discharged its duties very well on a budget of £750,000, which is chicken feed in comparison to the figures that other public organisations funded by the Northern Ireland Office receive. The Police Ombudsman and other organisations receive much more than that. The commission is strapped for funds, and it needs additional funding. Its funding should be between £1·5 million and £2 million per year. If the commission were given that sort of funding, it could discharge its duties much better. The Human Rights Commission rightly pointed out that it is underfunded and that it does not have sufficient powers. Its powers and its independence do not reflect the Paris Principles, which are internationally recognised as the minimum requirements.
One of the many weird criticisms that Dr Birnie made of the commission was that it had a maximalist approach to human rights. Why would it not take that approach? If it had a minimalist approach to human rights, it would be failing in its duty.
Junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister) (Mr Haughey):The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a non-transferable matter, so I must limit my response to the facts. The commission is required to consult with and advise the Secretary of State on the scope for a bill of rights. The consultation document published on 4 September 2001 forms the commission's initial advice to the Secretary of State. It will provide its final advice to the Secretary of State when the consultation process has ended. The Secretary of State will decide whether the commission has fulfilled its remit. I have listened carefully and noted the range of views expressed.
Several important matters have been raised, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will consider those remarks carefully.
The Executive have yet to consider whether they will make a response to the bill of rights, but if they do, they will consider carefully the views that have been expressed.
With regard to the allegations made about the composition of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that the Secretary of State must
"as far as practicable secure that the commissioners, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland."
The Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of the 52 members of the commission; the Executive do not have a role in that.
Mr Attwood:
Some comments have been made about the membership of the Human Rights Commission. Whatever we think about how representative the commission's membership is, the comments that were made were, at the very least, unfortunate and, at the very worst, potentially dangerous. Will the Deputy Speaker consult Hansard to examine the comments made by Mr Poots when he referred to the "pro-prisoner, pro-terrorist and pro-Nationalist" activities of the Human Rights Commission? The word "pro-terrorist", in particular, puts members of public bodies in the North - in this case members of the Human Rights Commission - at risk. I request that the Deputy Speaker review that matter.
3.00 pm
Someone on the other Benches somewhat generously referred to Mrs Nelis's comments as a rant. Mrs Nelis said
"that rights and equality are alien words to the mindset of Unionism".
Regardless of my thoughts on the motion, or what is happening in Unionism, to portray Unionists as having a mindset alien to rights and equality does not inform the debate. Rather, it gives an insight into the mind of the person who would say such a thing and suggests to me that that person is pathological in her attitude towards another community in the North. That attitude is manifest in the failure of both Sinn Féin Members who spoke today to accept the invitation from the Unionist Members to comment on abuses of human rights that emanate from the Republican movement and community. Their silence and lack of response on that reveals much about those who criticise the Unionist approach to human rights, a criticism which, in many ways, I share.
Mr McCartney stated that the Human Rights Commission
"has almost entirely ignored the violation of human rights by non- state bodies"
Mr McCartney almost entirely ignored the activities of the Human Rights Commission. As well as its intervention on behalf of the Omagh families, it made submissions to the Ad Hoc Committee on the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill 2001 and expressed views on the proposed Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, both of which are attempts to purge our community of the effects of organised crime. It has made comments to the House of Commons's Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the relocation of victims of paramilitary intimidation. It has contributed to the International Council on Human Rights Policy report on human-rights approaches to armed groups. The portrayal of the Human Rights Commission as a body that entirely ignores non-state abuses is contradicted by many of its activities.
Duncan Shipley Dalton said that there was no need to go beyond the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. That view may be valid. However, that was not the mandate given to the Human Rights Commission. Page 16, paragraph 4, of the Good Friday Agreement explicitly says that the commission should consider
"rights supplementary to those of the European Convention on Human rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland"
It then adds
"These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem"
That explicitly goes beyond the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the Good Friday Agreement gives a mandate to move beyond the European Convention on Human Rights, the commission is quite right to do so.
The implementation of human rights in the North is an opportunity, not a threat. We hear from the Unionist Benches that it is considered a threat, not an opportunity. The Unionists should heed what Monica McWilliams said about the growing volume of opinion in the North and heed too those who are articulating the need for human rights - the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, Save the Children, Women into Politics, Amnesty International, the Multi-Cultural Resource Centre (Northern Ireland) and the many organisations that gave submissions during the consultation process on a bill of rights. They are representative of the Northern Ireland community. Many of their members may also be Unionists, Nationalists, Loyalists or Republicans, but they all can see that the new civic religion in our society, and in many societies around the world, is the issue of human rights. They are embracing them, and it is time for us to do the same.
Dr Birnie:
I would like to thank all who participated in the debate, especially the junior Minister, who had the difficult task of speaking about something for which he does not have responsibility.
As time is tight, I will not attempt a point-by-point rebuttal, tempting though it would be. However, the second Sinn Féin Member to speak, Dr O'Hagan, implied that my party had failed to make a submission to the commission. If you look at page 154 of the document you will see that we are listed there.
In listening to some of the comments this afternoon, particularly from those Members speaking against the motion or, indeed, in favour of the amendment, I rather think that some such persons were adopting a position similar to that adopted by a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke. In 1993, he urged Members of Parliament to vote for the Maastricht Treaty, but he then went on to admit, quite candidly, that he had never read the document. We have read this document, and in it, and, indeed, in what has been said this afternoon, we have not found evidence that the commission would have lacked, or would now lack, resources if it had stuck to its defined remit as stated in the Belfast Agreement.
We have not heard evidence to counter the crucial point that many social and economic rights, desirable though they may be as objectives, cannot be justiciable. Poverty cannot be abolished by a decision in court. It needs public spending, a sound economic policy and a productive economy - all very important items - but it cannot be solved by a human rights document. That is not, to use Mr Ervine's allegation, a piece of so-called right-wing rant. It is a sound philosophical argument, supported internationally by many commentators on human rights.
Has the Human Rights Commission gone beyond the agreement? Yes, it has. It is condemned out of its own mouth. On page 14 of the September document, the commission says
"In so far as a narrow interpretation of paragraph 4" -
that is of the section in the agreement -
"might be thought to rule out the recommendation of certain rights, the Commission is satisfied that it can properly rely on its general power under section 69(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998"
It therefore argues, to my mind not convincingly, that it cannot simply rely on the agreement - it relies on the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That is clearly a case of going beyond the agreement. I repeat what I said - we are not against rights per se; we simply want full implementation of the agreement in this regard, as in others.
I listened closely to Mr Attwood's summing-up speech. In closing, he got very euphoric and referred to the rights agenda as "the civic religion". At least we agreed on that, as I referred to it as "a secular religion". Let us put it to the test. If this really is what the people of Northern Ireland want, let it be tested by a referendum. However, I note that there is a suggestion that the Bill of Rights should not be approved by a referendum, although, to be fair, I have not heard that from the commission. I heard it from other lobby groups. I suspect the reason for it is that they know a majority of people in Northern Ireland would not vote for many of the suggestions within such a document as this.
I support the motion, and, contrary to some rumours that I have been hearing over lunchtime, I hope that we will move rapidly to a vote on it rather than have a so-called stay of execution for perhaps six days. The matter is sufficiently important to be voted on now, on its own merits, without resort to a procedural fig leaf.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Dr Birnie has pre-empted my next comments. I wish to inform Members that a petition of concern has been tabled in respect of this motion. Under Standing Order 27, no vote may therefore be held until at least one day has passed. Standing Order 27 states that
"A Petition of Concern in respect of any matter shall be in the form of a notice signed by at least 30 Members presented to the Speaker. No vote may be held on a matter which is the subject of a Petition of Concern until at least one day after the Petition of Concern has been presented."
I understand that the Business Committee considered this matter at its meeting today. In accordance with its decision, the vote on the matter before Members will be taken during the plenary session on Monday, 1 October at the commencement of private Member's business. Copies of the petition are available in the Business Office for Members who wish to inspect it.
Fuel Poverty
Mr Ford:
I beg to move
That this Assembly encourages the Regulator General for Electricity and Gas to contribute to the eradication of fuel poverty by increasing the energy efficiency level to £5·00 per customer, creating £3· 6 million to tackle fuel poverty.
This motion will have more immediate practical effect on the citizens of Northern Ireland than the one we have just debated, so I trust Members will move quickly to a vote. For those who have not been subject to the effective and competent lobbying which many of us have experienced during recent weeks, I will explain the workings of the energy efficiency levy. For many it is something that gets lost in our electricity bills.
The levy is funded from electricity bills at the rate of £2 per consumer. To date, it has achieved £3·4 million, which has been used towards addressing energy efficiency and fuel poverty matters. It has been calculated to produce benefits of around £29 million for the neediest in society, which is an effective rate of return, given what happens in most areas of Government expenditure. Two thirds of the expenditure has been directly targeted towards the fuel poor and has probably achieved a reduction in the region of 137 kilotonnes of carbon.
In Northern Ireland there are around 170,000 households that suffer from fuel poverty. It is a major issue, and there is much to be done. We have evidence that the regulator wishes to increase the levy, subject to political support. That support should be registered today in the Assembly. The regulator proposes that the levy be increased to £5 per annum for each consumer, which amounts to less than 6 pence each per week. This is not a significant sum for an individual, and the benefits have already been proven.
The extra £2 million that might be raised will be targeted towards perhaps as many as 80% of the fuel poor, which could save in excess of £20 million, and perhaps as much as £22 million, per annum. This is a significant amount of money.
Although I am a mere Opposition Back-Bencher, I must remind the Members of the four largest parties of their commitments to the Programme for Government. This will help to meet UK national targets on fuel poverty and cut greenhouse gases. In Great Britain the levy is £1.80, rather than our £2. An immediate increase to £3.60 has been proposed, with a further phased increase to £4.80. An increase to £5 might follow. The effect on consumers will be minimal compared to the benefits.
Suggestions have been made about how what is a good scheme could be improved. The idea is that more money should be channelled towards total fuel poverty schemes. We have seen examples of small ACE schemes in the past, which carried out limited insulation work. Some grants were available, but there was a piecemeal approach. The concept of dealing with every aspect of a household's fuel poverty, from insulation to improving heating sources, must be realised to ensure that those in need benefit from the scheme.
There is a need to improve existing structures. There are too many small schemes which, no matter how willing their workers, do not have the benefits of economies of scale and cannot work across the client groups.
3.15 pm
If we could improve the management of schemes, we would, doubtless, see even more benefit. The Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG) must take a lead in discussions about how to monitor the effectiveness of schemes and improve the use of the energy efficiency levy. Already, there is a payback that amounts to nine times the original expenditure. Neighbourhood Energy Action and other groups estimate that there could be a further increase and suggest that we could improve existing schemes and produce additional resources.
Some Members expressed concern about the content of the motion, and an amendment has been proposed. Members feel that there is a problem with the existing scheme because there is a flat-rate charge. There is a strong argument that anything that is, in effect, a tax ought to be progressive, so that those who can afford it pay more, and those who cannot afford it pay less. However, we must recognise the reality of the current scheme. The money is collected by Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE). Each consumer pays the same levy, regardless of ability to pay, and there is no administration charge for raising the money; given that we are all likely to criticise NIE later on, we should at least record that fact. We must ensure that the money that is raised is used for its intended purposes.
It has been argued that if we pass the motion, we will let the Executive off the hook, since the Executive have to fund such schemes. The Executive fund other related areas of work - for example, through the Housing Executive budget - and I do not oppose the idea of an increase in the budget given to the Housing Executive to improve the services that it provides. We are working with limited resources, but an increase in the levy would provide additional money for the Department of Finance and Personnel.
It is also argued that if the motion were to be passed, we would let NIE off the hook. I could engage cheerfully in happy populism, telling everyone about what a dreadful bunch of wicked capitalists NIE are, and about how they got the industry cheap and take too much money. However, there is no mechanism - short of primary legislation, which might well be struck down by human rights legislation - through which the Assembly could enforce such a levy. The existing energy efficiency levy can be increased, and, instead of demanding pie in the sky, we should find a realistic way in which to improve the scheme.
I discussed the amendment with the proposer. I am not sure whether the Ulster Hospital is wired up to receive Assembly television; if it is, Jim Wells will be watching and criticising me. I send him my good wishes. The amendment, which differs from what Mr Wells and I discussed last week, could wreck the existing scheme. I do not believe that that was Jim Wells's intention, and I do not believe that that should be the intention of the House.
If Members wish to table a further motion relating to NIE's profits and how they might be applied for the public good, they should put it before the House, and we can discuss its merits. However, we should not wreck the current scheme just to make a political point about our concerns about NIE.
When the regulator gave evidence to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, he said that he was looking for a lead from the Assembly on the energy efficiency levy. In GB there is a similar levy which is about to be significantly increased from £1.80 to £4.80 in two stages. We should give the lead that Mr McIldoon has asked for. We should match the GB picture by increasing our levy from £2 to £5. We should pass the motion unamended and then look at further ways of improving the situation of the 170,000 households that still need our help.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
One amendment to the motion has been selected and has been published in the Marshalled List.
Mr Dodds:
Unfortunately Mr Jim Wells who was to propose the amendment is unable to be here. As most Members are aware, he was taken suddenly ill this morning. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that he is making good progress, though he is going to have some tests done. I am sure that everyone will join with me in sending our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
We convey the best wishes of the House to Mr Wells.
Mr Dodds:
I also apologise that I was delayed and missed the first part of Mr Ford's remarks.
Mr Kennedy:
The Member missed nothing.
Mr Dodds:
I am told that I did not miss anything terribly important. I was attending a meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee meeting at which we were trying to wring more money out of the tight-fisted Finance Minister.
Mr S Wilson:
Did the Committee succeed?
Mr Dodds:
We have not yet succeeded; we are going back for the second round shortly.
I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "poverty" and insert:
"by entering into negotiations with Northern Ireland Electricity to obtain additional funding equivalent to the amount which would be generated by the proposed increase in the energy efficiency levy to £5.00 per customer."
I listened carefully to the points made by the proposer of the motion. Indeed, he succeeded in putting forward most of the arguments against his motion. He disposed of the arguments with varying degrees of success, although I do not feel he did so convincingly. All in the House will agree that fuel poverty is an extremely important issue. That is the first thing that must be said.
The Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive, as the home energy conservation authority, have a programme in place to tackle the issue of fuel poverty. We have debated this issue on previous occasions, and we are well aware of the fact that 170,000 households in the community suffer from fuel poverty. We are also aware that it has been estimated that upwards of 600 people each year are dying as a result. That is a deplorable situation. Therefore the issue of fuel poverty is crucial, and we must address it. It is simply intolerable that 600 people are dying each year in Northern Ireland from cold-related illnesses.
We, the consumers across the Province, are currently paying the highest prices for electricity anywhere in Europe. When NIE announced a few months ago that it was increasing electricity prices by about 9%, there was rightly outrage across the House in all quarters about the swingeing increases in electricity tariffs. Having already been subjected to high increases and already paying the highest prices in Europe, our consumers are being faced once again with a massive increase.
Some of the reasons behind our high electricity prices are undoubtedly to do with the way in which the electricity industry was sold off. There are problems with the generators' long-term contracts. Various ways have been suggested in which that can be addressed. Consumers here are already paying high rates, and this morning the Minister of Finance and Personnel offered no relief on that score as once again rates are to go up by double the rate of inflation. Next year electricity prices are going up by three times the rate of inflation. Those issues must be borne in mind.
Time and again reference has been made to the fact that people who receive social security benefits can obtain relief. There are many people who do not fall into that category: those who make just enough money to not fall into any qualification for benefit. They are always hit hardest when it comes to increases.
It is right that we should be trying to increase the amount of money going into the programmes to deal with fuel poverty. However, there is concern across the House about going back to the customers and telling them that they should pay an extra 150%, - albeit phased in - in the energy efficiency levy, to cover the cost of putting more money into eradicating fuel poverty.
Is there not a case for encouraging the regulator to talk to Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE)? It may not be possible to require NIE to pay this money. If that is the case, it is something that we should be looking at. It is incumbent on us, as public representatives, to say that a company with the profits that NIE is making - over £90 million this year - should be asked to contribute towards this programme, in the light of the high prices that are already being charged to consumers and households in Northern Ireland. If it is not prepared to do that, then we should address the issues again.
To turn round and say that the onus will be put on the hard-pressed consumer to put up this amount of money is unfair. The revenue is not being raised from the appropriate section of the community. NIE has generated massive profits, and it has a responsibility to eradicate fuel poverty. That is not to say that the company has not done anything about this. It has worked with the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG) and others to try to improve the situation. However, to target consumers to raise this money is, as Mr Ford said, in effect putting another tax on consumers. It is unfair to go back to those consumers and ask them for the money to pay for these programmes. That takes the responsibility away from those who are better equipped to pay.
We could come to the House and say that it would be a good idea to increase pensions in Northern Ireland; that pensioners across the Province deserve more per person, per family, or per couple. Would it be acceptable for anyone in this House to stand up and agree, and levy an extra tax on pensioners to pay for it? That is effectively what we would be doing. "Pay a bit more and you will see the benefits. It will go back into your pockets another way." That is unfair and it is not the right approach.
We should ask the regulator to go to NIE and see if there is a way in which this money can go into schemes to eradicate fuel poverty. We all agree with that, but not with taxing already hard-pressed households and families in Northern Ireland who are already paying the highest prices for electricity anywhere in Europe.
Mr McClarty:
I support the motion. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that Northern Ireland Electricity is unlikely to support any voluntary additional funding equivalent to the amount that would be generated by the proposed levy increase. NIE is a private company and it would be unrealistic to expect it to set aside money towards the eradication of what is essentially a problem for Government.
3.30 pm
Mr Wells and Mr Dodds have together tagged the levy increase and the additional voluntary funding by NIE, therefore I cannot support the amendment. The proposed amendment sounds very good in theory, but it would be unrealistic in practice. It is better to get half a loaf as a consequence of the proposed motion than to have no bread, which would be the effect of the proposed amendment. The bottom line is that I support an increase in the levy, with no conditions attached.
Fuel poverty is one of Northern Ireland's hidden disgraces. Most people are probably unaware that the problem even exists. We take for granted the warmth of our homes, without recognising that many thousands of elderly folk and families with a low income have to spend the winter months wrapped up in layers of clothing, and suffering the physical effects of damp and cold. How often do we assume that poverty is something that we see on the streets, and that it does not exist for people who have a roof over their heads? That is not the case.
Poverty, particularly fuel poverty, is an all too frequent reality for over 170,000 households in Northern Ireland. It is a reality that must be addressed. Low income levels and high energy costs combine with limited access to energy-efficient fuels to create a cyclic cocktail of fuel poverty for far too many people in the Province. Those factors contribute to the proportionately higher levels of fuel poverty that exist here, by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The situation is far from satisfactory. The current energy efficiency levy, which is £2 per customer, raises £1·4 million per annum and is used to develop energy efficiency and fuel poverty strategies. To date, £3·4 million has been used in that way. £2·2 million, or 65% of that amount, has been directly targeted at fuel-poor customers. That is all to be commended, but it does not go far enough to eradicate the ingrained poverty trap that is experienced by so many families.
The time has come to explore the possibility of an increase in the levy, and I am sure that most warm people would support a small rise in it. Any additional revenue raised as a result of the levy increase must be efficiently targeted at helping the fuel poor. An increase in the levy to £5 per customer would raise an estimated total of £3·4 million per annum. I contend that the vast bulk of that capital should be directed at energy efficiency and financial support programmes aimed at those in greatest need. The tangible benefits of increasing the levy from £2 to £5 per customer would demonstrate the Executive's commitment to the eradication of fuel poverty as outlined in the Programme for Government.
If the Executive are serious about the eradication of fuel poverty, they could go even further than merely stating their aim of intent. It would take approximately £50 million to eradicate fuel poverty in the Province. To increase the levy to £5 per customer would raise an additional £2 million towards this aim. It is worth remembering that at the proposed rate of return it will still take 25 years to stamp out fuel poverty in the Province.
The Executive, however, could help to eradicate fuel poverty much faster, by signalling their support for the setting aside of moneys specifically to tackle the problem. Rather than seek support from NIE as outlined in the amendment, the Executive could signal to the community its appreciation of the extent of the problem, and its willingness to take tangible financial steps towards relieving the difficulty faced by so many in the community.