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

My Lords, that is a very fair point. I set a trap and fell into it myself. I will get my colleagues in the Box to write a letter to the noble Lord to try and help with the genuine anxieties he has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, asked what gives Scottish Water a right of appeal and who represents the customers’ interests. The Water Industry Commission’s primary duty, set out in the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002, is to promote the interests of the potential customers of Scottish Water, including those to be served by licence providers in the future. Within the investment objectives and charging policy set up by Scottish Ministers, the WIC is required to fund Scottish Water so that it can carry out its functions at the lowest reasonable overall cost. That means that WIC must only allow Scottish Water the funds that it requires to carry out its functions efficiently. If Scottish Water fails to deliver efficiently, these costs must be met by the owners, Scottish Ministers, through increased government lending to Scottish Water. I think that the customer is pretty well connected. There is quite a bit more briefing on that point, but I will send it to the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked why this provision was not made by the Scottish Parliament. The Competition Commission’s role and functions are reserved to the UK Parliament and cannot be altered by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament scrutinised this aspect of the policy during their consideration of the Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005, including hearing evidence from the Competition Commission. The noble Baroness also asked a question which I think she has asked before—whether we should be reviewing Section 105 of the Water Industry (Scotland) Act. That provides for subordinate legislation to be made in the UK Parliament which contains provision which is necessary or expedient in consequence of any act of the Scottish Parliament. These provisions are usually outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. To be effective, an ASP may require consequential provision to be made to the law relating to reserved matters or the law elsewhere in the UK, such as, for example, to make cross-Border provision for prisoners. The legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to make consequential provisions like this is limited. It can make consequential amendments of the law on reserved matters, but can only do so in limited circumstances and, crucially, as a matter of Scots law. I hope that answers the concern of the noble Baroness. On Question, Motion agreed to.