Debate contribution: NI Water Challenges

Debate contribution by Lord Elliott on 8 April 2024.

MLA

Lord Elliott

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

8 April 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

NI Water Challenges

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4481749

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It has been an interesting debate. I want, initially, to offer some defence to NI Water. I read some of its statistics on its website, and the Minister can correct me if they are wrong. NI Water was established as a government-owned company in April 2007. It supplies customers with approximately 560 million litres of good-quality drinking water every day. That is a huge amount of water going through the system. It collects approximately 330 million litres of waste water a day, and around 743,000 households and organisations are connected to the sewerage system, which transfers waste water to the works where it is treated and disposed of safely. However, 162 million litres of water a day were lost through leakages. Even NI Water's own target is 152 million litres of leakages a day. A huge amount of water goes to waste. That water has been treated at least four times through NI Water's systems, but it is going to waste. It costs around £680 million each year to deliver water services in Northern Ireland. Thousands of assets, at a value of around £3 billion, are operated and maintained to provide those services. They include over 43,000 kilometres of water mains and sewers. In 2022-23, NI Water's daily running costs totalled £375·6 million; its operating profit was £105 million; and the profit after tax was £41·1 million. A dividend of £19 million was paid to DFI, which, by my calculation, leaves a shortfall or £22 million missing. From that post-tax profit of £41 million, only £19 million revenue was given back to the Department for Infrastructure. Where did that other £22 million go, I wonder? There may be an explanation for that, but, to me, the key to it is that there are a significant number of processes. I understand that there are at least four treatment processes in the system to get drinking water to every household and business in Northern Ireland. Then, when the sewage comes back in, there are another four treatment processes to get it back out, not counting the water that may not have been treated that goes back into the system, which Mrs Erskine and others talked about. That is of huge concern to everyone. How can we improve on that? Is there any improvement on that system? I will deal with the contributors. Mike Nesbitt opened the debate and talked about the three elements that require addressing: strategic investment, policy reform and governance changes. He and others highlighted that those are all in line with the Audit Office report. I take the Minister's point that he will not comment on the Audit Office report at this stage, but there has to be a response at some stage to establish whether we can have a review. Mike Nesbitt highlighted that there is significant need for a review of the system. Deborah Erskine proposed the amendment and said that there were more overflows in the system than in other parts of the UK; I think that that is per capita or per mile of pipe. That is a worrying development. I listened to Cathal Boylan, and, true to form, he blamed the Tories. I accept his analogy. Mark Durkan made a similar point, but, at least, he said that there are other issues as well as the Tory austerity cuts. Patrick Brown reiterated the problems that are being created for new housing developments. He also supports mutualisation. At least some parties in the Chamber are singing from the same hymn sheet, but not all of them are. Peter McReynolds said rightly that there is no single solution to the problem. That is true. It is a combination of factors. That is why our motion recommends an overall review of the plans. Pasty McGlone highlighted the problems with businesses. He said that they cannot expand, due to which there is a severe lack of investment in Northern Ireland. Stephen Dunne talked about the outdated oversight arrangements in the process. Gerry Carroll was clear in his thoughts: he said that the establishment of Northern Ireland Water was a disaster and that the basis of the motion is to privatise water services. His recommendation is to bring Northern Ireland Water back into public ownership. I note that the Minister did not go that far, but, perhaps, we will hear his thoughts on the Audit Office report at a later stage.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I will not comment on the Alliance Party manifesto or its policies; the Alliance Party can do that for itself. I am coming to the point about mutualisation and how that could be managed. I think that Minister O'Dowd said that £2·1 billion is required to bring us up to standard. He explained the remit of Northern Ireland Water and the Utility Regulator. He asked the significant question of why developers should not be asked to pay. I see that point and, perhaps, accept part of it. However, he said that some may pay and some may not. How do you make the distinction? If they are going to pay, it has to be across the board; the same for them all.

I thank the Minister for that. It is a good point. I am taking from him that, if the developer wants to pay and go ahead with the project, they can, but, if they do not want to pay, the project will not go ahead. If that is the proposal, that needs to be brought forward clearly so that developers know where they stand at an early stage. They should not have to commit huge expense around application fees and other aspects before they know exactly what they might be required to pay.

I take the Member's point, but that is one of the reasons why it needs to be laid out at a very early stage for the developers. They cannot go to all that expense and then be hit with a significant bill that they are not expecting from NI Water. There is merit in it. However, I hope that it will all be part of the review that we have put forward in the proposal. Finally, I want to deal with the Minister's point on mutualisation, which, he said, would lead directly to water charges: it does not have to. Surely, a clause can be put in by the Department into the contract with whatever company takes on Northern Ireland Water or the mutualisation of it. You can say, "There are to be no charges", or "We cannot have direct water charges."

I am sorry; I am out of time, Mr Brown. Finally, I should have declared an interest because I pay for my water twice. I pay for it through my rates, and, as a farmer, I pay direct water charges as well. I do not see why you cannot put a clause — this answers Mr Carroll's point — into any agreement with a company that takes on Northern Ireland Water saying that it cannot put in domestic charges.

1,183 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification