uuptoday.org

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with the measure in principle—

Lord Glentoran: But.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes, but. Perhaps in saying that I agree with it in principle, I should say that I have some admiration for the road service. Over the years, I have seen the efficiency of the service increase, and I pay tribute to people such as Malcolm McKibben and Jeff Alistair, as well as my own local engineer, Pat Doherty. They have done very well. With the major road works on the west side of Belfast, which affect me every time I come into the city, minimising the disruption is something that we appreciate. Perhaps this is the place to recognise that.

The order has 28 articles and two schedules and, as other noble Lords have intimated, it is far too complex for an Order in Council. It should be dealt with as primary legislation by a Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish that when a Minister came with a piece of legislation of any sort he had to carry with him all the paper that would form the paper trail attached to it. With this one, he would need more than the four aids that he has sitting behind him to bring in the amount of paper that is going to be used. This provision will entail a huge increase in the number of bureaucrats—the people who will oversee the multitude of papers that will arise from the legislation. The Minister will probably guess the question that arises from this, but the provision will also require a huge budget. I am not an expert but, from what I can glean, it may be £30 million. I want to deal with that point.

We all want to see traffic moving easily and less disruption on our roads, but here we are using a sledgehammer—or should I say a jackhammer—to crack a nut. The only costs that I can see here are those that will arise if people infringe the legislation; that is, the penalties. I do not see anything that indicates what the provision will cost. The public utilities—the people who provide gas and water—will have huge bills. It is reckoned that, of the £30 million, the Water Service will probably have £15 million extra to pay. That is the advice I have had. Has that been budgeted for by the Water Service? What is going to happen in that regard? How will it retrieve its expenditure? Will that cost be added on to the already, for some of us, alarming cost for water?

People whom I have talked to within the public utilities have indicated that they had not been made aware of some of the issues or that they had not been consulted to the extent that they would have liked. Have provisions been made within the budget of the Water Service for these costs? Will the water consumer now pay for street works as well as water usage? Did consultation on water charging include this issue of additional costs arising from street works? Has the General Consumer Council offered a view on water customers paying extra charges to cover street works? Of course, I could repeat those same questions for the provision of gas or communication services of whatever sort.

It is important that the Minister gives us considerably more information. Ideally, I should love him to say at the end of this debate that he will take the legislation back and that we will deal with it in the Assembly as a proper piece of legislation. But I know that he is not going to do that.

Before I leave that point, I draw the Minister’s attention to an Irish news story today, which indicates that the increased costs could add £80 on to household bills as a result of the legislation.

There are other aspects of the order that I cannot understand. We know that we can cut a nice clean track in the road by sawing it—we do not dig it up any more—and that it is easily replaced. It is important that repairs are done efficiently, but why would we impose on the utilities the need to resurface the entire road? How would that be decided? I can see that it could happen but at who’s whim? I do not think that there is anything in the legislation to indicate how it would be done. If you dig a track in the road, put in a sewer, fill it in and top it off, it does not matter that you have repaired the entire width of the road. The important place that needs to be inspected and reinspected will be where the track was, because with the settling of ground and so on it may need to be resurfaced on more than one occasion. So what is the sense in saying that the whole road must be resurfaced?

If I had any reassurance that there was a fixed lifespan for every major or A-class road between normal resurfacing, where one could see where damage had been done, then, depending on the length of time until the next major resurfacing, a charge might be suitable. But would it not be nonsense to ask the utility companies to resurface a road now if the road was to be completely resurfaced by the road service in spring or early summer of this year? Nothing in the order appears to indicate partnership. It seems that the public utility companies, including the water service and gas suppliers, are being penalised.

What about the private developers—the people who really disrupt traffic? Where are they catered for here? How are they to pay part of the charges? I may be wrong, and the Minister may be able to reassure me, but I see absolutely nothing in terms of provision for private developers. Why are they not asked to bear some responsibility? Perhaps it is because this legislation has been put together in such a complex way that it would be virtually impossible to police every private development. That may be the answer but it is not good enough and it gives me concern.

Without wishing to offend the Minister, although I have done that already, there are things in the legislation to which I would refer as nonsense. The idea that someone with a bowler hat and rolled umbrella can come along and tell the engineer, “Take your apparatus from that road. It is a main street. Put it down that side street”, is—

Lord Smith of Clifton: Is the noble Lord referring to an Orangeman with a bowler hat and umbrella?

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: As someone who is totally colour-blind, I could not possibly comment. This really is a matter for consideration. If we employ professionals, we require them to have properly trained people who should come along and say, “You must move your equipment off-site because it may cause a diversion”.
Those are some of the questions that I must ask about this legislation. I should like to know whether there is a schedule of road works, because that would have an impact. If there were a fixed schedule of works for a class of road, one would be able to consider this legislation in a slightly different light. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that this will not be, as I suspect it will be—and as I think he suspects it will be—a bureaucratic nightmare.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, an ex-mayor of Belfast. My visits there are not very frequent. I was there on the first weekend in January and before that on the first weekend in December. I was going to say that whoever has planned the infrastructure, it will be a man in a bowler hat—and there is nothing wrong with a professional engineer wearing a bowler hat, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.

Lord Smith of Clifton: Given the context of this debate, umbrellas and bowler hats have a number of connotations. I was not disparaging engineers, or indeed members of the Orange Order. I just wanted to know which one the noble Lord was talking about.

Lord Rooker: Professional engineers come in many guises. Some of them are women—even in Northern Ireland, I suspect. It might even be a woman who has organised this. My visits are less frequent than they used to be, but whoever has planned the timing and co-ordination of those massive infrastructure works in Belfast deserves a medal. It has been quite remarkable to watch, as I have done over the past 18 months or so during my visits there. Yet all we had from the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was a whinge against bureaucrats who he thought could not organise things. Here is a classic example of something that has been really well organised.
The noble Lord has asked a series of legitimate questions.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am flattered.

Lord Rooker: Well, some of them are legitimate. If there are any emergencies, as one noble Lord asked, there is a provision for works to be classified as “immediate activities”. Utilities would not be required to give permits for emergency work, but, within two hours of starting work, they would need to tell the roads authority that they were on the job. That is not unreasonable.

We have had a lot of figures bandied about. The order will not come fully into force for quite a while because of the work that has to be done following the original legislation, but less congestion will be a benefit. You cannot put a cost on congestion, although economists attempt to do so when we are looking at new roads and so on. The cost of congestion is an enormous figure over a year, but it is difficult to say how it affects the individual wallet. However, all utilities, private or public, are regulated, and it would be up to the regulator to ensure that the costs passed on to the customer were consistent and that the customer was not simply ripped off.
I shall answer noble Lords’ specific questions in no particular order. Where a department intended to resurface a road, there would be a plan for that. There would be a programme of works, depending on the budget that was allocated. These things are not done willy-nilly; they have to be planned months, and in some cases years, in advance. The utilities might be asked to contribute towards the cost where they have been active in the excavations.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to private developers—presumably of housing or office blocks—who may be building or be required to build roads and access as part of the planning gain or planning permission. They will be required to put in and pay for the road infrastructure as part of the development, but they are not going around digging up the road for repairs. Essentially, we are talking about the utilities—the undertakers with responsibility for water, gas, electricity, telephone lines or perhaps TV cables. We are referring to all those things that are under the road or cross the road and may need repairing or upgrading from time to time.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I think the Minister misunderstood me. I was talking about occasions when private developers need to get access to existing sewers and other services. That happens quite frequently. In fact, unless it is an entirely new development with its own new infrastructure, such access will be required. Even then, that new infrastructure is often conjoined with something that already exists.

Lord Rooker: That is a fair point. I misunderstood the question. The answer to that point may just have been handed to me. The provisions of the draft order will not be applied to other works on streets—for example, road works or work carried out by private developers. The order will apply only to street works because work carried out by others in streets is controlled by separate legislation. It would not be appropriate to use street-work legislation to apply the provisions of the order to those parties.

When resources become available, the department proposes to review legislation concerning the works of private developers and others outside street works on roads and to introduce appropriate measures to control them better. In other words, we would need to look at other legislation. The noble Lord makes a fair point and I am sorry that I misunderstood his original question.

The figure of £80 was raised in relation to individual household bills. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to an Irish news article in that regard. At the moment, it is impossible to say what extra costs will be added to utility bills. That will not be known until the regulations and codes of practice are developed in consultation with the utility companies. There is quite a bit of work to be done once this legislation gets on to the statute book. It will not happen overnight but will take a couple of years. A regulatory impact assessment will also be provided at that stage to ensure that the measures are good value for money.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am in danger of being accused of whingeing, although I suppose that in some respects I am here to whinge when the Government put the cart before the horse. Is it not a good idea—the Minister admits that the situation is otherwise—to have some general costings before one puts a plan into operation? It seems ridiculous for the Minister to stand here and tell me, “We are going to do this. This will be the legislation, and then we will see what it costs the average household”. Targeting social need was supposed to be one of the platforms that this Government stood on with regard to the electorate. I worry about £80 or £100 per annum being added to the bills of the poorest households.

Lord Rooker: Frankly, that is unreasonable and scaremongering. This is partly enabling legislation. It gives powers for getting the permits and then, once they are secured, for consultation about the phasing and implementation of the measure. There is consultation with those affected, including the utilities which need to dig up the roads to replace or upgrade their services, a regulatory impact assessment and discussions with the regulators of the various utilities—gas, electricity and water—about how they will ensure that the public are not ripped off by costs being added to the bills. That seems to me to be good governance. Saying, “We’ve got all the answers; here is a piece of legislation” is crazy when the evidence from the past indicates that that would not be the case.

It is wholly reasonable to take this approach. It is scaremongering of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, to bandy about increases of £80 or £100 being imposed on the poorest people in Northern Ireland. No such figures have been produced by anyone of repute. They cannot do so because we have not yet gone through the regulatory impact assessment.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked about the prescribed period. I am not sure that I have the cart before the horse. This refers to a prescribed period in which roads authorities can say that the road has been dug up a couple of times recently and there must be a moratorium before someone else comes along after a short period of time. The prescribed period for which a restriction on works may be imposed would be in the regulations. These will be developed with the involvement of the utilities. We need some regulatory authority through the Northern Ireland Road Authority and Utilities Committee. Prescribed periods could be between six months and three to five years depending on the type of road. So we are saying in advance to people who use the road that they have suffered a lot of disruption but, unless there is an emergency, there will be no more permits for work on that road for a period of time. That would be good for business as well as for commuters.

The figure I have on costs, according to the initial estimate, is that the permit scheme could cost all the utilities around £7 million annually, but work has to develop to determine the level of fees and how they are going to be set. That is some way down the road. By the way, I should like to think that a Northern Ireland Minister in the Assembly will be answering to Members in the Assembly on the way in which the detail is brought in. Clearly, that would be much more satisfactory.

I was asked who the undertakers were. They are Phoenix Gas, Northern Ireland Electricity, the Water Service and other people who place apparatus in or under the streets. The Water Service will be a Government-owned company from April, but this is not the place to debate the water rates or the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has had free water for far too long and should now be paying for it. I know that I should not have said that because I am making a rod for my own back.

Detailed provisions will come through in regulations. We have to contain costs; it is not a free for all. If the roads people say to utilities that they cannot close the whole road but can only work on one lane, or we want the work done between midnight and 6 am, for example, their staff will be paid more to do that in overtime. But, if that reduces the overall congestion and disruption to people’s lives, a public good comes from that.

The utilities were fully consulted during the consultations on the policy proposals in 2005 and on the proposals for the draft order in 2006. In November last year officials met representatives of the Private Utilities Group—seven utility companies that formed an alliance to lobby against the department’s proposals to discuss their concern. Officials have been asked to continue in consultation with the utilities in developing working practices for implementing the new measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, it has to be a partnership; it will not work if there is war between the utilities and the authorities. Doing this in partnership would be seen as a valuable contribution to the lives of the people in Northern Ireland.

I thought that debating this order would take about two minutes.

Lord Maginnis has tabled a number of questions in the Lords on the modus operandi of the PSNI:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is required to operate on the principle of confidentiality. [NIO] HL1315

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Royal Ulster Constabulary GC ex-officers have died prematurely since the setting up of the Office of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; and how many of those ex-officers had been interviewed by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. [NIO] HL1316

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government how many investigating officers currently work for the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; and how many of them have previously investigated a terrorist incident. [NIO] HL1317

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government how many investigating officers currently in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have managed a counter-terrorist operation in a hostile environment. [NIO] HL1318

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government how many investigating officers currently in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have been involved in handling an informer in a hostile terrorist environment. [NIO] HL1319

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass to ask Her Majesty’s Government how many investigating officers currently in the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have previously worked operationally on matters of United Kingdom National Security. [NIO] HL1320

Tabled 18th January

To ask HMG what is the mechanism for members of the public or serving police officers to make formal complaints about the conduct of investigations carried out by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

To ask HMG how many complaints, since the Office was established, have been made by members of the public or serving police officers against the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; who investigated these complaints and what was the outcome of each.

To ask HMG how many serving or retired police officers have been convicted (final outcome after appeals) of any criminal offence - excluding motoring offences – arising from investigations conducted by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, since the Office was established.

To ask HMG how much compensation has been paid each year to members of staff employed by or attached to the Office of the Police Ombudsman since it was established; how many staff received compensation each year; what was grievance and the amount awarded in each case and whether this information has previously been made public.

To ask HMG how much compensation has been paid each year to members of the public and former or serving members of the RUC GC or the PSNI by the Office of the Police Ombudsman since it was established; what was grievance and the amount awarded in each case and whether this information has previously been made public.

To ask HMG how many serving PSNI officers (including Reservists) currently being treated through the Force’s Occupational Health Unit, or elsewhere, for stress related illnesses, have been the subject of investigation by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

To ask HMG how many former RUCGC/PSNI officers (including Reservists) currently being treated through the Police Rehabilitation Trust, or elsewhere, for stress related illnesses, have been the subject of investigation by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

The Lord Maginnis speaking at a Unionist meeting in Enniskillen:

“It’s a pity the Chief Constable is as confused as he appears to be. For someone who didn’t want political interference in his work he’s really lost the plot and obviously believes that “C.C.” stands for Chief Choreographer - that he’s simply here to keep the “Hain Show” on the road.

He should now give up his daily political pronouncements and get on with policing, or has he failed to notice that he still hasn’t caught the Northern Bank robbers or most of the gangs who roam the country to prey on elderly who live alone.

On the other hand, if he really wants to be a politician why doesn’t he start by giving some support to his officers when it comes to the witch-hunt being carried out by the Police Ombudsman’s office.”

The Lord Maginnis, having made representations regarding unacceptably long waiting times for Consultant 1st appointments following referral by a GP, has received a number of assurances from the Permanent Secretary at DHSSPS, Dr Andrew McCormick.

Lord Maginnis had suggested that the achievement of shorter waiting times for surgery and other specialised treatments following consultation, while welcome, was being offset by longer and undefined pre-consultation times.

Dr McCormick has now given an assurance that waiting time for Consultant 1st appointments will be reduced to 26 weeks by March 2007 and to 13 weeks by March 2008.

He has also committed the Health Service to a continued fall in waiting times for surgery.  Currently no one has to wait more than 39 weeks whereas there were over 8,000 waiting for that period in April 2005.   By March 2007 it is intended that all surgical procedures should take place within a 26 week period.

Congratulating Dr McCormick on the progress being achieved under his stewardship, Lord Maginnis, has pressed for even quicker response times for 1st referrals and for statistics to be published for this area in tandem with those for surgery following consultation.

UUP Peer Lord Maginnis, speaking today in the House of Lords, delivered at stinging indictment on the “total disinformation and misleading attitude” between the Northern Ireland Office, the various Departments and Parliamentarians.

Lord Maginnis pointed to the government’s approach to Autism in Northern Ireland as proof and added that “it is in relation to a matter such as Autism that the effects are most profound and tragic”.

Today’s debate on Autism was brought forward by Lord Astor of Hever.  Lord Maginnis is Vice-President of Autism N.I. and is someone with personal experience of the condition known properly as Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

He tabled question after question in the Lords to find out how the government approaches Autism in Northern Ireland and says he came up against the most devious and obstructive administrative attitude imaginable, adding that the bureaucracy is confused, inept and evasive to the point of irresponsibility.

In a statement in the House, Lord Maginnis said,

“I would plead with Government to recognise, before it is too late, that there is major and growing problem facing us. To fail to address the consequences of the huge escalation in Autism would be a tragedy.

This failure exists in Northern Ireland . I regret to say I have come up against the most devious and obstructive administrative attitude imaginable.  The bureaucracy is confused, inept and evasive to the point of irresponsibility.

I intend to illustrate this opinion within the context of answers I have received to Parliamentary questions. This is about the lives of vulnerable, young children and their families and it is about time the matter was properly aired.

The condition most often becomes noticeable in children around the age of three.  From three until the age of seven or eight is a crucial time in the ‘learning curve’ of a person’s life.   Language, experience and social awareness are accelerating at an enormous rate and where there is this inhibitor – autism – the developmental loss can be devastating.  Hence early assessment and early intervention are crucial.

I was assured by the Secretary of State in a letter dated 30th June, “Health Boards and Trusts … are charged with commissioning and delivering local services on a permanent basis to meet the needs of their local population”.   But let’s look at what one finds when it comes to children right on the verge of those vital 5 learning years - 3 year olds who show signs of being autistic, and who need to be urgently assessed.

In reply to written questions I was told at 31 December 2005 that some 686 children in Northern Ireland were waiting to be assessed – some for up to 35 months.   Let’s think about that – 3 out of those vital 5 years at the beginning of school life – 3 years without the necessary one-to-one classroom assistance that can totally transform an autistic child’s life.

Those 686 awaiting assessment have now been revised to 652.  If one can even believe that, we have a reduction by a mere 5% in 6 months – a rate of resolution which could in theory mean the backlog will be resolved by 2016 – how many children’s future will be blighted in the interim?

But on assessment itself we find the greatest deceit of all.

In June 2005 I was told, “Information on the number of children referred for suspected autistic spectrum disorder assessment and the current waiting times for assessment are not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost”.   Yet a mere six days later I was told “The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s priorities for action 2004–05 required boards and trusts to establish multidisciplinary diagnostic, assessment and early intervention teams to provide for improved life outcomes for around 200 children and young people with autism each year.”

Now if statistics weren’t available on 8th June 2005 on what basis were such measures able to be planned and sanctioned over 2 years earlier – to be implemented by March 2004?  Can I be blamed for believing that someone is systematically distorting or concealing the facts?

In reality, despite that 2004-05 Departmental requirement only 7 Trusts, out of 4 Health Boards & 18 Trusts, have two years later established these teams.

Throughout all this bureaucratic and administrative chaos Autism N.I. has for 16 years helped those with ASD by providing advice and support to parents. It has been trying to encourage a coordinated approach by Health & Education departments but has been constrained and obstructed at every turn.  While we at Autism N.I. don’t pretend to have all the answers we, sadly and through personal experience, do know a great deal more than most and, bluntly, we can offer government the help it so obviously needs – but it has to be a two-way process.

Autism NI, the main support organisation in Northern Ireland, gets less than 4p per day for each of around 3,500 autistic children.

Autism cannot be cured but there are very few autistic children whose lives cannot be immeasurably improved by early assessment and early intervention.  Yet what response does one find?  Evasion, equivocation, distortion and deception.  Is this how we treat the most vulnerable and the needy within our society?   Is this how Government wants to be remembered?  Or is Government willing to change and accept the need for partnership, for proper planning and for a realistic approach? “

UUP Peer Lord Maginnis today said that Tony Blair is marginalising Northern Ireland with Part Time Ministers. In a statement he said,

“It is appalling that the PM has chosen to appoint yet another part time Minister to Northern Ireland.  Once again, he is appears happy to marginalise one region of the United Kingdom.  With his adoption of such a cavalier approach one must wonder why, and what is afoot that the mercurial Secretary of State Hain is about to impose by Diktat.

It does not go unnoticed that the Lord Rooker, who has given a personal and public guarantee that no ’secret deals’ are in the bag or will be tolerated by him, has been moved out.

The Secretary of State tells us that Mr Cairns will be ‘driving forward the reform agenda following the Review of Public Administration’ but what faith should the people of Northern Ireland have that important issues in Agriculture, Environment or Regional Development will be addressed by a part time Minister?

Northern Ireland has already had three Agricultural Ministers within the last three years - something which has not helped the difficulties of our local farmers locally or in Brussels.

This added to the three-minister approach to Educational reform that will inevitably tarnish the jewel in the crown - old labour ideology at the expense of our children’s future.

As we have seen from the Secretary of State himself, no man can be in two places at any one time. Yet the Prime Minister expects Minister Cairns to divide his time between London, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Whilst the PM strips his Deputy of all Ministerial responsibility while remaining on full pay he instructs others to take on further responsibilities within Government, but at a distance.

What is the PM’s logic?  Unionists cannot be blamed for making assumptions that ‘dirty deals’ are afoot.  Ulster Unionists, in particular, cannot do other than wonder who is acquiescent in such an abject betrayal.”

Ulster Unionist Peer Lord Maginnis of Drumglass has told the Upper House that the government’s Order implementing the seven council plan is a “travesty” which is clearly “designed to bully the majority of citizens” in Northern Ireland.

“The Government has no real clothes on this issue and is operating against the expressed wishes of all these bodies and a clear majority of the Members of the NI Assembly.”