Schedule 1 - The Water Services Regulation Authority
Water Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
I concur with the hon. Gentleman's eloquent and convincing comments.
The evidence from other bodies, including Ofgem, is that it is generally regarded as healthier to have a separate chairman and chief executive. No matter how talented a person may be, combining the two posts risks concentrating too much power and authority in one person. Generally speaking, a critical mass of people who can exchange views and work together is a safeguard for anybody performing such a function. Once the number of members falls below that critical mass, there is the danger that one personality might dominate, which may not be helpful and may be contrary to the effective operation of that authority.
As a matter of practice, it is right to separate chairmen and chief executives. Some of the best organisations such as the Environment Agency do that very successfully. Although I have great respect for both the people at the top of the Environment Agency, I would not like to see one of them carrying out a dual function, which would be detrimental to both their performance and that of the agency. The same principle applies here: the division of roles between the chairman and chief executive should be generally endorsed as a matter of course in Government bodies, and it seems entirely proper to put that in the Bill.
It is wrong and potentially dangerous to permit as few as two members. The Minister may say that practice suggests that there will be more than two members. If that is the case, however, why not increase the number? There is nothing to be lost by that. Keeping the figure at two suggests that it is permissible but undesirable; if it is undesirable, we should increase the number.
I have one more point on staff matters. I notice that paragraph 3(2)(b) says:
''A person holding office as chairman or other member . . . may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour.''
One would not want any Secretary of State to be able to remove someone because they did not agree with what that person was doing, rather than because of incapability, so the word ''incapacity''—whatever it means in this context—is important.
I notice that there is the safeguard that there must be consultation with the Welsh Assembly, so if we believe that the Secretary of State is behaving inappropriately, we have to rely on the Assembly to protect us. That is not an appropriate mechanism.