§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to say, on behalf of my colleagues, that we will not take any part in this debate as we do not agree with the way in which the orders are laid before Parliament. You have called attention to the lateness of the hour and the subject to be debated. On behalf of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House, I am making a protest, and accordingly we will take no part in the debate.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers)I beg to move,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.This has been described as a most controversial draft order and the forerunner to privatisation of electricity in Great Britain. Those criticisms are utterly misconceived. It is nothing of the sort. The draft order works broadly on the lines of the Energy Act 1983 and permits the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland in much the same way as that Act permits it for Great Britain. To that extent, the order should not be controversial. Nor, I hope, should it be opposed.Another controversial issue—it was described as the only one by a number of people who made representations about it—is the obligation on Northern Ireland Electricity to buy electricity from a private generator. Following representations, that admittedly controversial point has been withdrawn, and is no longer in the draft order.
Of the gathering of the Federation of Unions Supplying Electricity, under the name FUSE, to fight the draft order and the alleged privatisation, yesterday's Belfast Telegraph said:
The Federation of Unions Supplying Electricity has welcomed changes in the draft order as a victory for their organisation.FUSE secretary, Mr. Pat McCartan, said the removal of the proposal to direct NIE to purchase electricity from a private generator was 'exactly what we wanted.''We are naturally delighted that our representations to the Secretary of State and the Minister, Mr. Peter Viggers, have resulted in changes.'It means that consumers in Northern Ireland will not get private electricity unless it is going to be cheaper.'The legislation will be similar to Britain and FUSE has no reservations about NIE competing with the private sector on an equal basis.'I believe that that removes the most controversial point from the draft order and it should therefore be welcomed by the House.Right hon. and hon. Members may wish to raise another matter—the future of private power generation in Northern Ireland. It has been very difficult to ascertain the facts and the long-term price of coal and lignite. It has also been difficult to agree a form of contract, which is necessarily complicated with a private generator.
Decisions have not been made, but we hope that they will be made before long. It has not been possible to identify all the facts and complete all the contractual arrangements. We are listening to those who make representations to us, and I repeat that decisions have not been made. On the basis of what I have already said, and 302 on the basis that the draft order also contains a number of quite detailed points, most of which replicate and mirror the Energy Act 1983 that applies in Great Britain, I hope very much——
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)One of the criticisms made of the Energy Act 1983, especially in relation to the generation of electricity by wind generators, is that the buy-back arrangements by public utilities were not sufficiently generous to encourage private generation of electricity by wind generators. Does this order contain anything that will make people more likely to generate electricity privately?
§ Mr. ViggersThe order will enable private generation of electricity and NIE is already under a statutory obligation to acquire electricity at the most advantageous price from the point of view of the consumer. To that extent, the enablement of private generation will meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. That will be enabled in the draft order.
On the basis of what I have said and with the assurance that if detailed points are raised by right hon. and hon. Members I will do my best to answer those in my reply, I hope that in the circumstances this very brief introduction to the order will be acceptable to the House.
§ Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)The House embarked on this debate at 11.35 pm. Whatever the Minister might say to try to persuade us, this is the most controversial measure to be introduced into the House today. It is introduced on an unamendable order in a debate limited to an hour and a half. A number of right hon. and hon. Members earlier made clear their views about this. I do not always agree wholeheartedly with the interventions of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but on this occasion he was absolutely right.
I want to begin by placing on record the view that this is not a responsible way for a democratic Government to behave. The procedure places everyone under an impossible pressure of time and it discourages some hon. Members from contributing. It offers no opportunity for discussions on detail. It manifests a contempt for Northern Ireland and for this House. And it strips away all pretence that the Government retain an open mind to the arguments. I fully understand that the Minister has tried to make amends by his very brief introduction. I do not criticise him for that. He was in difficulty and he did his best.
§ Mr. ViggersWith respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I was in no difficulty at all. I sensed that it was the mood of the House that this motion should he introduced very briefly. I could happily have spoken for 25 minutes to introduce the draft order. I can happily do that in my reply should that be required.
§ Mr. ArcherThe problem when the House gets into this mood at this stage in the evening is that, even when one tries to be helpful and friendly, that is misconstrued. I was not suggesting that the Minister did not have a case. I have no doubt that if he wanted to speak for 25 minutes, he would have found something to say. I meant that he was in difficulty because the Government business managers had placed him in that position. I think that he was trying to be helpful.
303 However, it simply will not do for the Minister to say that this is not really a controversial measure but only an enabling order. We might have thought from what the Minister said that the matter was academic and that it is not a matter of what the Government are intending to do, but simply a way of passing the time. The Government are proposing to take certain steps in relation to the electricity industry in Northern Ireland and that is why they are seeking these powers. If they do not propose to use them, perhaps the Minister will say so now and will withdraw the order and we can all go home.
We know what the order is really about. It is about the Prime Minister's unshakeable conviction that nothing is really worth doing unless it produces a private profit. If the facts do not support that conclusion, so much the worse for the facts. I will try to be brief, but let us consider the facts. Everyone agrees that within the next decade there will be a need for an increased generating capacity in Northern Ireland. One of the reasons why the need has arisen is that the Government decided that it would be appropriate to close down the gas industry. There are other reasons and, in the medium term, we will need increased generating capacity in Northern Ireland.
Realistically, there are only two options for achieving that. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said in an earlier debate, one is to complete phase two of the Kilroot power station, owned by Northern Ireland Electricity, with a choice of burning oil or coal, and the other is to construct a new power station, probably at Crumlin, burning lignite. It is true that, if the calculation begins from the time that the new station is commissioned, the costs of production are less if the lignite option is taken. But the capital cost of constructing the lignite station has been estimated at £400 million. At Kilroot, much of the infrastructure work has already been completed in phase one. Much of the plant and equipment was purchased at that time and it is accepted that the cost will be only about £150 million.
The Minister may have seen the detailed report by Professor Barooah and Mr. Smyth, two distinguished economists, who have considered the options, and their calculations of comparative costs. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has not tried to follow the arithmetic—but we cannot all be numerate. Assuming interest at 10 per cent. on the capital costs, the total production costs for Kilroot would be 2.2p per kW hour while the comparable figure for a lignite-burning station would be 3.2p. If the Government's purpose is to encourage cheaper electricity, the advantage lies clearly with Kilroot 2. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South pointed out, there cannot be any comparison between the two.
That option would not mean turning our back on lignite. One day it may well be needed. But the exploration of lignite is still in its infancy, as is the research into its implications. An additional advantage of proceeding with the Kilroot option is that it spares us the necessity of being bounced into the construction at Crumlin before the other sites have been assessed and before the effects on the environment or wildlife have been considered.
Everyone now agrees that a vital element in energy policy is husbanding our resources. Kilroot 2 will offer an option at any given time whether to burn coal or oil. The station can use whichever is cheaper and it has the flexibility to switch from one to the other. There is no necessity to set out hell for leather using up all the stocks of lignite as quickly as they can be excavated and burnt.
304 Of course, we know what this is really about. The construction and operation of a lignite-burning station could be put out to private tender. It is the shortest route to privatisation of the electricity generating industry. One might have thought that, when dealing with an industry that is so basic to the economy, where the costs and the assurance of regular supplies are so important to the whole of manufacturing industry, there would be general agreement about the importance of keeping it under public control. After all, that is not some newly invented doctrine from the political Left. It was the conclusion of the McGowan commission for the whole of the United Kingdom back in 1935. It was accepted by successive Conservative Governments from 1951 to 1964. It was generally thought that it would no longer be a political issue. And in Northern Ireland, where we are discussing the construction of one power station, which will supply some 40 per cent. of the needs of the Province, one might have thought that, if the Government were coming to the House to provide a framework for privatisation, they would at least have explained how they proposed to reconcile that with consumers' needs.
Northern Ireland Electricity is under a statutory obligation to meet the needs of consumers. Presumably a customer could enforce that obligation against the board by bringing an action in the courts. But the Government propose that a substantial proportion of the generating capacity will not be under the board's control. The board may well have to buy from private generators what it needs to fulfil its obligations. As the Minister reminded us, the original edition of the order proposed to empower the Department to direct the board to buy from private sources. There would be no danger that private generators would be left with unused capacity. The loss on any spare capacity would be borne by the public. But, on reflection, even the Government saw that that revealed too clearly the political purpose behind the order. That was the first draft order—and they were proposing to knock the letter "r" out of "draft".
We give the Government due credit for having responded to the representations made by the trade unions. Very fairly, the trade unions have given them credit too. But the Government do not need power to direct the board: the board will have to buy in electricity from the private sector to meet its statutory obligations, if it has not the additional power itself. Those are statutory obligations that lie on the board, but are not imposed on private producers. Nothing in the order says that private producers must charge reasonable prices, or must not exploit their bargaining advantage. Indeed, there is nothing in the order about protecting consumers.
The Minister reminded us about the Energy Act 1983. It empowers boards in Great Britain to buy from private generators, but it imposes conditions about the effect on consumers. It says that the price to be paid to the private generators shall not be such as to increase the prices; charged to the customers of the board. There is no corresponding restriction on prices payable to private generators in this order. If they are in a position to hold the board to ransom, the board is in no position to resist exorbitant prices.
The original order the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972—imposes on the board an obligation to act in a manner compatible with the best commercial practice. This order contains no comparable obligation on private speculators. There is no obligation 305 on them to place construction contracts, or any subcontracts, with United Kingdom companies, or so as to create the maximum number of jobs in the United Kingdom. Their concern will be to maximise their profits, and their sole obligation will be to their shareholders.
Another safeguard is conspicuously absent. If a private company can no longer produce electricity at a profit, it may go into liquidation, and the liquidator may repudiate its contracts. He is then under no duty except to pay the maximum dividend to the commercial creditors and then to the shareholders. The generating station will remain in existence, but no one will have the right to insist that it continues to meet the company's former contractual obligations to Northern Ireland Electricity, and the board may be faced with an obligation to consumers which it has no means of fulfilling. If that were a statutory obligation on private generators, that obligation would pass on to the liquidator, as it does, for example, in the case of the liquidator of a private water company. But no such obligation is to be found in the order. Indeed, there is no guarantee that the service will have any say in the arrangements under which private companies supply it. If we are to go by the present form, there is real doubt about the matter.
One of the contenders already negotiating for the fruits of the order is the Antrim Power Company Ltd. The company is insisting that its negotiations are conducted with the Department, and will not negotiate with the Northern Ireland electricity service, presumably because it hopes to obtain a deal from the Department to which the service would not agree.
If the service is left with no means of fulfilling its obligations, except to take power from the Antrim Power Company on such terms as it can then obtain, it may well find that its power to negotiate has gone. There will be only one supplier, which will have obtained that position by negotiating with the Department when the service was not even present.
None of this is an oversight by the Government; there are too many precedents in the legislation for even this Government to have overlooked them all. Clearly the Government have thought about the implications of what they are doing. They have thought carefully about how they can ensure so far as possible that every risk is borne by the public, and that every opportunity for profit lies with the private companies.
In article 5 of the order, the draftsman clearly considered possible circumstances in which the board may need to buy in electricity to meet its obligations, and the private company says, "We cannot generate additional electricity unless you help us to increase our capacity. We will sell you our electricity at a profit, but you must provide the capital, and you must bear the risk." So the public are empowered to make interest-free loans or outright grants. That is all in article 5. It cannot have any other purpose. Clearly the Government contemplate that the sums necessary to be invested should come from public sources, because in article 9 the service is given power to borrow money
in connection with any agreement or arrangementwhich it makes with a private producer. In article 7, the Department—in effect, the Minister—is given power to acquire land "compulsorily" and make it available for a private generating station.306 If the argument for private generation of electricity is that there should be competition, let the obligations of the private sector be comparable with those of the public. If the Government seek to extol the virtues of private risk capital, let private capital be genuinely at risk. But the Government want to create a game in which for one side only every ball counts as a no ball, and one can make runs without the risk of being out.
Of course the talk of competition is academic. None of this is about the real world. The Government clearly recognise that if industry and the private consumer are to be guaranteed a supply of electricity to meet their needs, plans for that supply must be made for periods of at least a quarter of a century, and the investments entailed in that kind of planning are not the investments that private speculators are prepared to undertake on a straight basis of shouldering the risk and competing on equal terms as to cost.
If consumers are to be guaranteed their supplies, and if the work force, with its experience and special skills, is to have a better prospect of job stability than colleagues in the gas industry, the community must ensure that the capital is available and take the necessary risks. The private speculators are prepared to let the community plough the fields, supply the fertilisers and plant the seed. and then to come along at harvest time and offer to help with the reaping on condition that they are allowed to take the crop.
The proposals for privatisation are not intended to provide a solution to any problem. There is no problem. They are irrelevant to the real issues about the future of generating electricity in Northern Ireland. They are about a mission on which the Government have embarked for wholly doctrinaire reasons, and the people of Northern Ireland are the first in the firing line.
The ultimate argument in this debate is the size of the payroll vote and the efficiency of the Government Whips. But we will be registering our protest on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and we hope that some hon. Members on the Government Benches will have the intellectual integrity to say that they are not just Lobby fodder and that they will not wear it either.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to record the same two substantive objections that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has just registered.
The first goes back to our debate on the first order. Yet again, this is an example of a procedure that is entirely inappropriate. This order amends an earlier, long order passed in 1972. Clearly, it ought to be debatable in all its component parts. It contains a substantial number of articles—21 in all. It should be amendable and the subject of proper debate. Certainly, it should not be introduced at this time of night because the debate should last as long as is necessary.
I hope that this is further evidence of all the arguments for an urgent review of the procedures by which Northern Ireland business is conducted. The argument was made earlier when we discussed the constitutional issues. It has again been made in this debate, and it is important that during this Session the Government's very general commitment be converted into a specific commitment to 307 ensure that such legislation is considered properly via the Committee structure rather than subjected to this cursory treatment.
The other substantive objection is that the order is not nearly as innocent as the Minister made out. On the face of it, his announcement that the order does not have the compulsion that it had when originally drafted is correct. Whereas previously the Government would have had the power to direct the board in Northern Ireland to accept private generation of electricity regardless of the cost, that has been replaced and there is now an enabling provision. The Minister can say that that leaves entirely free the continued practice that governs the electricity services of Northern Ireland at present. But here is the hidden agenda of the Government in relation to the energy supply industry. Evidently, on the basis of the planning of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland, the Government will be able to interfere in the near future to ensure that private generation of electricity for profit becomes a substantial component part of electricity supply in Northern Ireland. If they start there, it is likely that, in this Parliament, the Government will want to do the same on the mainland.
Over the years, my hon. Friends and I have made clear our objections to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry—whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The fact that that could be a result of the order is sufficient to make us highly suspicious and to register our objections by opposing it in the Lobby.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West said, Kilroot 2 is the subject of work at the moment. It is undergoing conversion to coal. I am advised that the work could he completed by 1992. Kilroot 2 would meet the needs until the end of the 1990s, and that would allow at least two years to assess the present work on lignite power generation at Crumlin. Clearly, that is likely to be a private generation project, but there is no need—let alone tonight—to enable that private site to be developed when the Kilroot 2 site will have the necessary facility.
Another objection further along the line is that it is likely that the Government would give a private company a 30-year contract to supply electricity but without a statutory duty to supply it at agreed prices. If that company had between 20 and 40 per cent. of the total supply, it would be in a strong position to increase prices and influence the pricing structure of the industry in Northern Ireland. It would not be competitive. It would be a growing private monopoly. The argument that if there is to be a monopoly, it should operate in the public sector, in the public interest and with money recycled for the public benefit is as strong in Northern Ireland as it is anywhere else. The case for lignite is not proven; it has not been demonstrated that the prices would be lower and it is fairly obvious to the informed observer that the order, and the amendment that it would make to the substantive order, are intended to enable the Government to negotiate privatisation, not for reasons of energy efficiency but because of their policy on privatisation in the energy supply industry.
I hope that, even if the Government secure a majority tonight, they will realise that there is widespread opposition to any attempt to go further and privatise the energy supply industry in Northern Ireland. I hope that even if they have the power to do that, they will 308 nevertheless ensure that the energy supply industry remains in public hands, and for public profit, as the public have always asked.
§ 12.3 am
§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)The order opens the door for the Government to award a contract for a public power station in the north of Ireland to be constructed and operated by private operators. That would be the precursor for the introduction of similar initiatives on the mainland. It is not surprising that Northern Ireland is being used as a test-bed. In a number of instances over the past 15 to 20 years—particularly those involving the draconian limitation of civil liberties—Northern Ireland has been the test-bed. Crowd control, surveillance, snatch squads and the rest have appeared first in Northern Ireland and then on the mainland, from Grunwick to Wapping via south Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. There is no difference between using the energy industry in Northern Ireland and using public order as a test-bed.
The Tories have been open about their intention to privatise electricity. That is why they rehabilitated the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) and putt him in charge of the Department of Energy. This enabling legislation is a preface to selling off the British electricity supply industry, and especially the private operation of nuclear power stations. If there is one thing that is worse than publicly-owned and run nuclear power stations, it is privately owned and run nuclear power stations. The bottom line will be profit and the return on shareholders' investments.
Many organisations in the north of Ireland are vehemently opposed to the private building and operation of this 450 mW, lignite-fuelled electricity generating station. First and foremost, as has been mentioned by both opening speakers, the trade union movement is against it. The staff of Northern Ireland Electricity is totally united in determined opposition to the proposal, not just because a private operator would require a higher rate of return than the NIE is statutorily required to maintain, but because of what would flow from it: a worsening attack on the wages and conditions of those who worked in such a station, so that the higher rate of return could be maintained and electricity costs reduced. It is bound to come out of wages and reducing manning. That will happen especially if the management of the private power station is anything like the management of Abbey Meatpackers in the North of Ireland, which yesterday sacked all of its work force in a battle over their wages and conditions.
The Secretary of State is sitting here quietly tonight, but it was reported in the Electrical Review at the beginning of the year that he sees the profit incentive in such stations as increasing efficiency and cutting production costs. The unions in the industry see themselves as the main target of his attempt to cut production costs.
The Government cannot even count on bodies from which they would normally expect support, such as the Northern Ireland Economic Council, which was set up and run effectively as an arm of Government. It has five representatives from the CBI and the chambers of commerce, five representatives of the "great and good" in Northern Ireland and five from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Four or five weeks ago, it put out a press release saying that it 309 had concluded, through a consultants' study that it had organised, that there was nothing to do but to "reserve judgment" on the matter of a privately-operated power station, especially one that was lignite-fuelled.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned Professor Vanni Barooah and the study that he carried out for the University of Ulster. He did not have time to mention the fact that the study showed that the use of lignite would be more expensive at £79.5 million a year, compared with £49.9 million a year for the expanded Kilroot oil and coal-fired station. It would also cost about £400 million to build, compared with about £150 million for the development of Kilroot.
If all those people are against the private building and operation of that power station, who is in favour? One set of people who are in favour are the private consortia which have put in bids to build the station. Of course, it is pure coincidence that involved in those consortia are companies such as GEC Turbines, which happens to be headed by Jim Prior, a former right hon. Member of the House and a former Tory Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is just coincidence that firms such as Hanson Trust are involved. Last year Hanson Trust gave £50,000 to the Tory party. There is an old saying among working people, and probably other sections of society, "You scratch my back, and I will scratch yours."
Inherent in the applications and the considerations of these construction projects is that sort of smell—that sort of scratching of the back of those who have paid money to the Tory party in the past and who are now looking for their rewards. They hope to achieve those rewards in the same way as Unilever set itself up with British Gas, with fixed-price contracts over a long period. GEC entered into an agreement with the Central Electricity Generating Board to be the majority supplier of heavy switchgear on fixed-price, fixed-profit contracts.
According to those at the universities who drafted the contracts, the operation of private power stations would be based on a 30-year fixed-price contract with indexation. Public funding would lead to private profit from such a contract.
The order and the press release issued by the Northern Ireland Office knock on the head the suggestion that appeared in the draft document in January that in the north of Ireland statutory periods of notice would be reduced before disconnection. However, we on the mainland have discovered that the Tory promise to remove the reduction of statutory notice means nothing after privatisation has taken place. Following privatisation, British Gas has increased disconnections by 27 per cent., but over the same period there has been only a 1 per cent. increase in disconnections by the electricity supply industry. It should be understood that there are exactly the same statutory codes of conduct. It is clear that when privatisation takes place there follows the introduction of a far harder school of management with a different attitude from that adopted by the management of public services. The new management is a private profit-making machine whose responsibility lies only with shareholders and their dividend cheques. It is unfortunate that the order will not receive the full attention that some of us expected earlier.
310 There is an underlying assumption that an extra power station must be built in Northern Ireland. I have read the material that has been produced by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, including graphs that project a 30 per cent. climb in peak demand over the next 13 years to the year 2000. It is estimated that by the end of that period there will be a deficit of 500 MW, hence the conclusion that a new power station is needed. That approach ignores the downturn and collapse of manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland that has taken place already, the realities of the next 12 to 18 months with the onset of another world recession and the way in which Northern Ireland, which is especially weak within the capitalist economies of western Europe, will be hit by it.
We have already seen a loss of 33 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland over the past eight years. If we take the real unemployment figures, including youth training programme entrants and the older workers who no longer feature in the official figures. it is clear that about 170,000 people are chasing about 3,200 vacancies. The real rate of unemployment in the north is twice that of employment in manufacturing industry, which is 21 per cent. of the economy, and unemployment will worsen in the next two or three years.
According to the NIES and the Government, we should be talking about building an extra power station at a cost of £400 million instead of completing the half-built oil-coal-fired power station at a cost of £150 million. If the issue is confined to saving money, increasing efficiency and nothing to do with opening the door to private profits for the mates of the Tory party, why not complete the oil-coal-fired station at Kilroot instead of building a new lignite-powered station?
There are still battles to be fought and won in Northern Ireland by the trade union movement against the stalking horse or Trojan horse of privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The responsibility for such a campaign lies not only with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service unions, which have grouped together and declared total opposition to the private building and running of a power station, but with the entire leadership of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That must be the main vehicle for the defence of wages and conditions of workers and their families in the north. If it is to succeed in such a campaign, it will be well advised to set up its own political arm to give genuine political expression to the only unifying force in the divisive politics in Northern Ireland—the working class.
§ Mr. ViggersIt is difficult to argue with those who believe in the conspiracy theory of history, but I shall try.
I am aware that the future ownership of the electricity industry in Great Britain has recently become a matter of wide public debate. We as a party recognise the benefits of private enterprise and we are fully committed to privatisation of the industry in Great Britain. Hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) is taking the matter forward with all possible speed. The situation in Northern Ireland, however, is different. The draft order is not connected to Her Majesty's Government's new initiative in Great Britain, but rather has two purposes: to facilitate the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland, broadly on the lines of the Energy Act 1983, and 311 to effect a number of amendments to the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which have become necessary since that order was made.
As I explained recently to the House in a parliamentary answer, private generation of electricity offers many potential benefits for Northern Ireland. Among them are the possibility of cheaper electricity as a result of private sector efficiencies, the welcome boost that a new station would give to the construction industry and the economy in general, and the favourable impact which such a significant demonstration of confidence would have on Northern Ireland industry. However, no decision has been taken on the various future generation options, and I make it quite clear that our eventual decision will be made in the best interests of electricity consumers in Northern Ireland.
It is important, in formulating a future generation strategy for the Province, that we do not allow any artificial constraint to prevent us from achieving our aim of securing the cheapest possible electricity. Private generation is a real option, but present legislation in Northern Ireland prevents the generation and supply of electricity as a main business by any undertaking other than Northern Ireland Electricity. In facilitating the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland, the draft order makes provision for such a contingency and brings Northern Ireland more into line with the situation in Great Britain.
§ Mr. ArcherIf the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government have not taken any decisions about the matter, what is the purpose of introducing the order and seeking such powers at 16 minutes past 12 tonight?
§ Mr. ViggersAs the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate—even the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) appreciated this—this is enabling legislation. It enables NIE in Northern Ireland, in a similar way to the way in which CEGB was enabled in the Energy Act 1983, to buy private electricity and enables a private generator to supply electricity to the grid. Indeed, there are private generators—large industrial operations—in Northern Ireland. One that I can think of in particular is available to supply electricity to the grid. The enabling legislation will legitimise such an arrangement should it be possible to achieve it. That is why we want to bring Northern Ireland as much in line with Great Britain as the legislation applied to Great Britain in 1983.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly said that there is nothing in the draft order covering the detailed arrangements about the supply of electricity to NIE by a private generator. This is, of course, because the detailed arrangements which might govern the purchase by Northern Ireland Electricity of electricity supplies from a private generator do not come within the scope of the draft order. In the event that Her Majesty's Government should give their consent to the construction of a private sector power station, such arrangements would be contained in a power purchase agreement between the two parties. That agreement would also contain appropriate provisions to ensure the continuity of electricity supplies to Northern Ireland Electricity.
§ Mr. ArcherDoes the Under-Secretary of State think that such arrangements should be the business of the House? Should not the House have some control over them?
§ Mr. ViggersIt will be for the Government in Northern Ireland to assist in the negotiation of a contract, which would be a contract between the private generator and NIE. NIE has a range of statutory duties; they are, to acquire electricity at the most advantageous price, to supply electricity to consumers, and so on. The terms of that contract would protect individuals because of the statutory duty of NIE to buy on a commercial basis.
There has been little comment about the other detailed provisions in this draft order, but these too are important for the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland. That is because these detailed and modest measures also bring the legislation more into line with legislation in Great Britain. For the purpose of enabling private generation to take place in Northern Ireland and for the purposes of the other modest measures, I ask the House to approve the order.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 201.
315| Division No. 11] | [12.19 |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Greenway, John (Rydale) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Gregory, Conal |
| Brazier, Julian | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Butler, Chris | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Butterfill, John | Grist, Ian |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Ground, Patrick |
| Chapman, Sydney | Grylls, Michael |
| Chope, Christopher | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Churchill, Mr | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Colvin, Michael | Hannam, John |
| Conway, Derek | Harris, David |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Cope, John | Hayes, Jerry |
| Cran, James | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Hayward, Robert |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Heddle, John |
| Day, Stephen | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Devlin, Tim | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Hill, James |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Hind, Kenneth |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Dover, Den | Holt, Richard |
| Dunn, Bob | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Durant, Tony | Howard, Michael |
| Dykes, Hugh | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Eggar, Tim | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Evennett, David | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Fallon, Michael | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Favell, Tony | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Hunter, Andrew |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Irvine, Michael |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Jack, Michael |
| Forman, Nigel | Janman, Timothy |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Forth, Eric | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Franks, Cecil | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Freeman, Roger | Key, Robert |
| French, Douglas | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Gale, Roger | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Gill, Christopher | Knapman, Roger |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Knox, David |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Gow, Ian | Lang, Ian |
| Latham, Michael | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lightbown, David | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Lilley, Peter | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Lord, Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lyell, Sir Nicholas | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| MacGregor, John | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Maclean, David | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Speed, Keith |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Speller, Tony |
| Malins, Humfrey | Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) |
| Mans, Keith | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Maples, John | Squire, Robin |
| Marland, Paul | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Steen, Anthony |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stern, Michael |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N) |
| Mellor, David | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Sumberg, David |
| Miller, Hal | Summerson, Hugo |
| Mills, Iain | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Moate, Roger | Thorne, Neil |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Morrison, Hon P (Chester) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Moss, Malcolm | Tracey, Richard |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Tredinnick, David |
| Neale, Gerrard | Trotter, Neville |
| Needham, Richard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Nelson, Anthony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Neubert, Michael | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W) | Walden, George |
| Onslow, Cranley | Waller, Gary |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Ward, John |
| Page, Richard | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Paice, James | Warren, Kenneth |
| Pawsey, James | Watts, John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wells, Bowen |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Wheeler, John |
| Portillo, Michael | Widdecombe, Miss Ann |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Price, Sir David | Wilshire, David |
| Raffan, Keith | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Redwood, John | Wood, Timothy |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Woodcock, Mike |
| Riddick, Graham | Yeo, Tim |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Ryder, Richard | Mr. Alan Howarth and |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Mr. Kenneth Carlisle. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Allen, Graham | Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) |
| Anderson, Donald | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Bidwell, Sydney |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Blair, Tony |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Boateng, Paul |
| Barron, Kevin | Boyes, Roland |
| Battle, John | Bradley, Keith |
| Beckett, Margaret | Bray, Dr Jeremy |
| Beggs, Roy | Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) |
| Beith, A. J. | Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) |
| Bell, Stuart | Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) |
| Buchan, Norman | Lamond, James |
| Buckley, George | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Caborn, Richard | Leighton, Ron |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles) |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Lewis, Terry |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Litherland, Robert |
| Canavan, Dennis | Livingstone, Ken |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Clay, Bob | McAllion, John |
| Clelland, David | McAvoy, Tom |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McCartney, Ian |
| Cohen, Harry | McCrea, Rev William |
| Coleman, Donald | Macdonald, Calum |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | McFall, John |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | McGrady, E. K. |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Cox, Tom | McLeish, Henry |
| Crowther, Stan | McWilliam, John |
| Cryer, Bob | Madden, Max |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Maginnis, Ken |
| Dalyell, Tam | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Darling, Alastair | Marek, Dr John |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Martin, Michael (Springburn) |
| Dewar, Donald | Martlew, Eric |
| Dobson, Frank | Meacher, Michael |
| Doran, Frank | Meale, Alan |
| Douglas, Dick | Michael, Alun |
| Dunnachie, James | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Fatchett, Derek | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Fisher, Mark | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Flannery, Martin | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Flynn, Paul | Morley, Elliott |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe) |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon) |
| Foster, Derek | Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie |
| Fraser, John | Mullin, Chris |
| Fyfe, Mrs Maria | Murphy, Paul |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Nellist. Dave |
| Galloway, George | O'Brien, William |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | O'Neill, Martin |
| George, Bruce | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Pike, Peter |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Prescott, John |
| Gordon, Ms Mildred | Primarolo, Ms Dawn |
| Gould, Bryan | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Graham, Thomas | Randall, Stuart |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Redmond, Martin |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Reid, John |
| Grocott, Bruce | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Hardy, Peter | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Robertson, George |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Henderson, Douglas | Rogers, Allan |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Holland, Stuart | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Home Robertson, John | Ruddock, Ms Joan |
| Hood, James | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hoyle, Doug | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Short, Clare |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Hume, John | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Ingram, Adam | Snape, Peter |
| Janner, Greville | Soley, Clive |
| John, Brynmor | Spearing, Nigel |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Steinberg, Gerald |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Stott, Roger |
| Kilfedder, James | Straw, Jack |
| Lambie, David | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Wilson, Brian |
| Turner, Dennis | Winnick, David |
| Vaz, Keith | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) | Worthington, Anthony |
| Wall, Pat | Wray, James |
| Wallace, James | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Walley, Ms Joan | |
| Wardell, Gareth (Gower) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Wareing, Robert N. | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Williams, Rt Hon A. J. | Mr. Don Dixon. |
| Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House of 30th June, be approved.