Schedule 1 - The Water Services Regulation Authority
Water Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Mr Simon Thomas (Ceredigion, Plaid Cymru)
Without getting ahead of myself too much, as I did last time, I assume that we will have a debate on whether to agree to schedule 1, and I will reserve my comments on the appointment process for that debate. I will confine my remarks to the amendment.
I am reminded of a similar debate that we had in the Standing Committee on what became the Communications Act 2003 on the number of members of such bodies. I support the remarks of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and the hon. Member for Lewes. We must depersonalise the issue of water regulation. If Committee members examine the reports of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I have served, they will see its members' frustration at the attitude to the directors general of both Ofwat and Ofgem. There has been an inability to make individuals see the bigger picture, particularly in view of that Committee's interest in sustainable development.
Sustainable development was not part of the initial legislation that established those bodies, although I accept that the Bill will change that. However, Governments have moved on and have a wider context for the work of regulation in the water industry as well as the electricity and gas industries. Therefore, as sustainable development has become more important, entrenchment has increased on the part of the personalities who single-handedly led regulatory bodies and said, ''I am interpreting the law in this way. It is my decision and I stand or fall by it.''
Those people were perfectly at liberty to do that, but a more corporate body would allow for greater variation of discussion. It certainly requires more than two members to achieve that, and the fact that one of them may be appointed in consultation with the National Assembly introduces a strong geographic and national interest in relation to England and Wales. Wales produces a lot of the water consumed in England, and that important element must be considered.
What water industry regulation do we want? Do we want an individual to be the sole arbiter of what goes on in the industry? They might take a limited view of changing situations and Governments, and how Parliament changes its view on regulation. Their view would be set in stone, and the only option for change would be to sack that person. If policy priorities changed, the option of sacking an
individual would not be useful. Surely it would be better to have a more corporate body with several individuals and a wider range of opinions. Later we will discuss disability, which is an important issue for the water industry, as are low incomes and affordability. We need more than one or two people to weigh up all the issues in a measured debate, fully taking into account the social, environmental and economic considerations of an important industry. I support the amendment and the tenor of the debate so far.