Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005

My Lords, though I no longer represent Wick or, for that matter, Thurso, I dare say my representation of both for 35 years may colour my thoughts about this measure. I express my gratitude to the Minister for his summary and description of the purposes of the order. I make no complaint about the procedure, which seems to be entirely comprehensible. Notwithstanding that, I do not entirely accept his view that this is a clear measure in its effect. As is often the case, the provisions of the order are comprehensible only by reference to other legislation. That is, perhaps, unavoidable, but none the less it does not assist those who want to understand it. That must be the whole pattern of how this scheme operates. The question that this order gives rise to in my mind is whether what is proposed deals with what many people would regard as the greatest danger in the regulation of public utilities; that is, the danger of regulatory capture. While it is true that the aggrieved deliverer of water services is given a right of appeal beyond any decisions of the Water Industry Commission, it is much less clear whether this measure provides a remedy for the users of water. The appellant who seeks a reference is either Scottish Water or the water and sewerage authorities whose licences may be questioned, modified or otherwise affected by a decision of WIC. I have to be extremely tentative in putting forward this query, which is not so much an objection to the order as an invitation to the Minister to clarify how he considers the interest of the ultimate consumer is assisted in practice by this schema. It is obvious that the WIC exists to exercise public interest considerations and it, and ultimately the Competition Commission, if it is considering the issues, will consider the impact on the user. Although well established in competition law and in the practice of regulated utilities in the rest of the United Kingdom, to give to the right of appeal only to one side of the equation seems to be something that requires just the slightest expression of doubt. That is what I am seeking to do through this short debate.