2013-06-18T03:21:19-04:00 Mike Nesbitt http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=mike-nesbitt Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mike Nesbitt Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.931242 2011-08-19T09:44:55-04:00 2011-10-19T05:12:02-04:00

Mike Nesbitt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-nesbitt/
In the old days, there was one, monolithic body, who took care of everything, generating electricity in our power stations, transmitting and distributing it through the grid, and supplying it to the light switches and power points in our homes and businesses. In the late 1980s, the monolith was felled by the desire to introduce competition, which was sold as something that would give the consumer choice, a development that itself would force the new suppliers to be more efficient, user-friendly and cost-effective.

That was the principle. In practice, Northern Ireland is too small to maintain real competition throughout the electricity supply chain, even with interconnectors to other regions and nations. We have managed to introduce competition at the start and end of the chain, in generation and supply, although at the supply end, NIE (now Power NI) still holds a huge chunk of the domestic market. But there is no competition for the bit in the middle - and no prospect of any, unless you think someone is going to invest the eye-watering amounts of money required to install an alternative set of pylons and underground cables. Hence the need for a Regulator, who acts as a sort of substitute for competition.

With that free market model, it is inevitable that any rise in the cost of raw materials is passed on to the end user; it is what businesses do to remain profitable. I also accept the rising cost of wholesale gas is largely behind the incoming price rise - as it was previously for an even bigger hike from Phoenix Gas earlier this year. But to leave it at that would be lazy, thoughtless and, for a MLA, a dereliction of duty.

As a member of the Enterprise Trade and Investment Committee at Stormont, I believe strongly that I need to exercise a challenge function of behalf of the voters and taxpayers, so I repeat here the question I have been asking industry experts since the May Elections: Is the domestic consumer better off under the new privatised arrangement than they were 20-plus years ago?

Interestingly, no one has convinced me that you, the consumer, are better off. The nearest thing to an answer has been to point to the security of supply, in other words, the number of times power cuts occur. That figure is down dramatically on 20 years ago, but that begs the question - would it have happened anyway? Is it directly and exclusively down to privatisation, or does new technology explain a lot?

And while raw material prices also explain a lot, is that the full picture? It seems to be a little known fact that part of the price we pay for our electricity includes an amount to make good a shortfall in NIE's pension pot. I am not arguing that retiring workers do not deserve the full pension plan they signed up for - they are. I am simply wondering if the full responsibility for the gap lies with the consumer. It would be useful if someone took a forensic look at the history of NIE's pension scheme from privatisation to present day. That might be a good start in analysing if the consumer should be better off than they are under the current regime.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.890727 2011-07-14T17:37:51-04:00 2011-09-13T05:12:02-04:00

Mike Nesbitt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-nesbitt/
Des used to work as a prison warder. This was in the days when some people took an unhealthy interest in where prison officers lived, what they drove, and what time they left home. His professional career ended prematurely, when he suffered a stroke. This was right after he spent an uncomfortable fortnight policing a serious and prolonged disturbance at HM Prison Maze. He spent two weeks in riot gear, working 80 hours a week, fearful for his safety inside and outside the prison.

His medical report concludes like this: "Mr X has suffered from a major disabling illness which will have affect [sic] him for life, and may have reduced his life expectancy. ... The only significant risk factor in this case is the period of very marked stress which immediately preceded it and which was employment related." Does this sound to you like Des is a victim?

Let's cross-reference to the 2006 Order. It defines victims and survivors in several categories, one of which is "someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident." Do you think this confirms Des is a victim?

In fact, Des has never been defined as a victim by any of the relevant authorities, despite the fact that the Consultant Physician to the Stroke Unit at Belfast City Hospital wrote the medical report cited above; despite the fact Des has been stroke-free before and since; despite the definition of victim and survivor; despite the fact that he has lost earnings measurable in six figures because of the stroke and the enforced early retirement from his chosen career.

How many are there like Des? How many people suffered strokes or other debilitating illnesses because of the stress and pressure they suffered because of what they did as soldiers, police officers, fire or ambulance service workers, or prison warders? And how many are not classified as victims and survivors of the Troubles?

Des holds out little hope of change. The Northern Ireland Memorial Fund has been instructed not to take any new applications, pending the introduction of a new Victims Service from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. No-one is yet sure what that Service will look like, what it will do, and how it will be different, or better, than the multiple services that exist currently. One measure of improvement might be whether it acknowledges that Des is indeed entitled to help.

It strikes me that victims often feel doubly victimised, first by the catastrophic event that made them a victim in the first place -but then a second time, by the shock of discovering the state and its public services are not there for them as they had always imagined they would be. The latter is often harder to take. You can probably imagine why.
]]>