Water Bill

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 13, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter and to which I have added my name. I do so as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who has already spoken, is also a member—other members are in their places today—to explain why that committee takes the strong view that a strengthened procedure, often called the super-affirmative resolution procedure, is important, at least on first exercise in the case of these regulations.

The context in which these amendments fall to be considered is that they are a wide-ranging set of amendments which represent a radical change of direction in the Bill. The Bill itself introduces considerable change in the way that the water industry operates, that industry being of great importance to the UK economy as a whole and to individuals. Although these amendments on retail exit are concerned with non-household supplies, as my noble friend has already stated, they are nevertheless of wide public importance.

The noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lady Parminter have all explained the political context and impact of these amendments. I will confine what I say to the three reasons why a strengthened procedure is so important. First, there has been very limited time for the consideration of this scheme as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, frankly recognised. The amendments are introduced in this House at Third Reading in response to amendments introduced earlier, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. However, in legislative terms, the amendments come, in this House at least, not even at the 11th hour: it is a minute to midnight. It is not, I suggest, satisfactory, and it is certainly not desirable, for nearly 11 pages of amendments to be introduced at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill without the time for lengthy and informed scrutiny of the detail of the proposed scheme. The amendments are complex and demand detailed scrutiny after all interested parties have had ample opportunity to consider them and to comment on them. The timing of their introduction has simply not permitted this to happen and the use of a simple affirmative procedure, as is proposed, would be likely to lead to a draft set of exit regulations being laid before Parliament for approval in unamendable form.

Secondly, quite regardless of the issue of timing, this is, I suggest, a case for a super-affirmative procedure in any event. The amendments would introduce into the Bill the power to make regulations which would effectively amount to an entire new legal framework to enable relevant undertakers to withdraw from the new market arrangements. If those provisions become part of the Bill without a super-affirmative procedure, then Parliament will have, as your Lordships well know, no opportunity to consider and report on the individual details of the proposed regulations and, in practical terms, no opportunity to invite detailed revision of their provisions. With the super-affirmative procedure set out in our amendment, there will be an opportunity for a committee of either House to consider the draft regulations in detail and to recommend changes to the draft for the Secretary of State to consider. The procedure proposed is similar to that in Section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008, which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended as a model. There is no rush to introduce these exit regulations, particularly not when they are potentially of such importance. They should not be the subject of delegated legislation without a full opportunity for Parliament to consider their detail.

Thirdly—this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—our committee was extremely concerned by the degree to which the amendments establish, not a list of requirements to which the Secretary of State must adhere in presenting the regulations, but a menu from which he can largely pick and choose at will. I have no objection to the fact that the power to make regulations in the first place, in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 1, is permissive and not mandatory. It may be that the Secretary of State decides against exercising the power to make such regulations at all, although that is of course unlikely. However, if he makes such regulations, it is surely right that he should be required to incorporate all the safeguards of which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke, which are essential to protect customers, to ensure proper consultation with interested parties, to safeguard the public interest and to secure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Yet the amendments as drafted are almost entirely permissive in respect of such matters.

I will trespass on your Lordships’ time for a moment or two to look at a couple of examples. Amendment 1 provides that exit regulations,

“may include provision for protecting customers”,

affected by a relevant undertaker’s withdrawal. Amendment 2 provides that:

“Provision under subsection (1)(a) may require a relevant undertaker … to consult”.

Amendment 4 states that:

“Exit regulations about the transfer of a part of a relevant undertaker’s undertaking may include provision for the making of a scheme to transfer property”.

These are all matters on which this House would wish to be given the opportunity for detailed consideration.

General directions are of general application. I will address two points on Amendment 9. Subsection (1) states:

“Exit regulations may make provision for the Secretary of State to publish … a statement setting out general directions for the”,

regulators. Subsection (4) states:

“Exit regulations may make provision for the Secretary of State, before publishing a statement under the regulations, to consult”.

These are all matters which I would expect, and I suggest your Lordships would expect, to be requirements. They are matters which concerned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The list goes on. The central point is that it is vital for Parliament to have the opportunity to consider the proposed exit regulations individually and to recommend changes to particular regulations before they become law without being restricted by the limitation inherent in a simple affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister that, due to a misreading of the Order Paper, I was not here to hear his first couple of minutes.

The Minister gave us a fulsome presentation of the changed position of the Government, which explained in considerable detail how these new powers would work. Those of us who sat through Committee and Report will know that the Government were faced with a pretty widespread view across the House that they needed to change their mind on retail exit. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, headed a series of debates which eventually brought the Government to change their mind and present these new clauses that are before us today.

It is of course a pity in many senses that this comes so late. Given this stage of the Bill, which has gone through both Houses of Parliament, it is difficult to deal with such a complex set of amendments. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, put amendments in this direction on the Order Paper at an earlier stage, and certainly when I did so, we did not expect to create quite such a substantial job-creation scheme for parliamentary counsel, but the Government have done a major job here and it would be churlish to quibble too much about it. However, there are problems with it. We all welcome deathbed conversions, but the central problem here is the lateness of the conversion. I wish that we were a stage earlier in the proceedings, when we could have tried to make minor amendments to the proposed clauses.

I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in particular that there are several points in this, from the first new clause onwards, particularly in the very first line and the reference to protecting consumers, where “must” really ought to be substituted for “may”. With a bit more time, the Government might have come to that conclusion themselves in the instructions that they gave to counsel. However, we are where we are, and this is a major concession by the Government to the House. In a sense, the whole process has been a vindication of the way in which the House considers complex legislation and minds are changed—and we have the result here before us.