My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his amendments, which, as he laid out, relate to the vital question of consumer protection. Most noble Lords, bar one, seemed to be supportive of his emphasis. We all wish to see an increasingly consumer-focused water industry and we welcome the opportunity to debate these matters.
The noble Lord thinks that, at the moment, this provision applies only to a single claimant. I will address whether the consumer redress scheme includes complaints made by groups of customers as well as complaints made by individual ones. I can clarify that the ability to address consumer complaints, whether they relate to a single customer or to a group of customers, is already reflected in this clause, which is drafted in such a way as to be inclusive rather than exclusive. To be clear, it covers complaints by both individual customers and groups of customers collectively—I want to put that very clearly on the record. The noble Lord might like to know that CCWater has already successfully taken up complaints on behalf of groups of customers, for example in a conurbation where a number of neighbours wished to challenge their surface water drainage charges. I hope, therefore, that he is reassured on the first area that he flagged up here.
On Amendment 136, we agree that consumer protection is an important matter in the context of the Bill. I also put on record and inform noble Lords that this is an area where action is already being taken. The industry, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water are working together to improve their collective approach to consumer redress. An independent dispute-resolution scheme is being established to give all customers an independent route for resolving their complaints without
having to go to court. The new scheme aims to provide a transparent mechanism for resolving complaints that have reached a deadlock under current arrangements. Work on this scheme is already well advanced, with all the water companies having signalled their support, and I note what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said about the industry being central to this.
5 pm
The Consumer Council for Water also has a central role in the new scheme. It will continue to negotiate with companies on behalf of customers, and be responsible for identifying when complaints cannot be resolved and therefore need to be directed to the adjudicator. This approach is backed by the companies, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water. All involved agree that referring complaints to the adjudicator should be the exception rather than the rule. Like my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, we want to see companies get this right first time. In this context the role of government should be to facilitate rather than to regulate. If we want the industry to take greater responsibility for meeting customer expectations we must enable it to take responsibility for resolving customer complaints, and so we are pleased to see this scheme being taken forward by companies, Ofwat and the Consumer Council for Water.
The noble Lord spoke about CCWater being reconsulted on a water company’s charges scheme, which we discussed in Tuesday’s useful debates on the first day of Committee on the Bill. As was said then, all water companies already routinely consult CCWater on their charges schemes and I emphasised that the Government’s charging guidance will stipulate that this should continue to be the case.
I want to raise another area not flagged by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which it is important to put it on record in relation to CCWater. The second part of his amendment would allow CCWater to investigate and resolve matters as it sees fit. CCWater already has wide-ranging powers to investigate any relevant complaint referred to it, and to report on those matters to Ministers and the regulator. However, CCWater is an advocate on behalf of customers. Its crucial advocacy role means that it would be inappropriate to give it adjudication responsibilities. Clearly, any body that has been tasked with resolving such complaints would need to be constituted in a way that was strictly impartial to all parties involved.
We understand why the noble Lord is emphasising CCWater, but we argue that granting a formal adjudication role could actually undermine its important role as the voice of consumers. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have told him about what CCWater, Ofwat and the companies are already taking forward, as well as by my assurances about how these things could be approached collectively and not just by a single complainant. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will also be sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.