---

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I very much hope that what I am about to say will not cost too much to answer. Is the Minister aware that the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which is one of courtesy and form, also relates to the Answers given at the same time to my Questions for Written Answer, where the problem was one of substance; that is, that the Answers were opaque? Is she also aware that the Minister concerned in the Department for Constitutional Affairs immediately asked to see me, discussed the problem with me, acknowledged that it was not good practice and has done something about it?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. It is bad practice if departments do not reply as fully as they are able to. If there are issues that they do not understand in a Question, it would be good practice to get back to the Peer who asked it to gain some clarification.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the delay in answering Written Questions is a disgrace and a contempt of the House? Does she recall that she has told us repeatedly that Written Questions should be answered within two weeks? Did she notice this morning that there were 85 Questions unanswered after two weeks; there are 37 unanswered
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1192
 
after three weeks, of which 22 are from the Home Office; and after nine weeks, three Questions still remain unanswered from the Home Office, that sad shrine of shambles and slumber? Will she, as Leader of the House, do something to stop this and stop wringing her hands and wailing that she is only doing her best?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not think I have ever been guilty of wailing or wringing my hands. That is not my natural mode of behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. It is incumbent on departments to answer Questions in a timely fashion. I raise this issue regularly with my colleagues not only in this House but in another place. I have discussed it very recently with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Noble Lords will know that new systems are being put in place in that department. My right honourable friend has assured me that things will improve, but it will take time. This issue has also been raised in another place. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons is also pursuing these issues vigorously.

Lord Maxton: My Lords, given that Ministers can sign electronically, would it not be faster and cheaper if Members were prepared to accept Written Answers electronically by e-mail instead of in any written form whatever?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, a number of Peers have indicated that they would like to receive Answers to their Written Questions in electronic form. That already happens, but those noble Lords who have not so indicated will receive a written response signed by a Minister.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to advise her noble friend Lord Foulkes that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale is quite right to table a Question drawing the attention of the House to this issue and to ask questions of the Government when they have not fulfilled their responsibilities? Will she also give an undertaking not to find out the cost of the Question, as that will merely add to the noble Lord's irritation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is open to any Member of the House to ask me a Question. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did that and I answered the Question. An equal courtesy applies to my noble friend Lord Foulkes.

Lord McNally: My Lords, given the passions raised by this Question, will the Leader of the House reassure Members that Whitehall still follows the bikini principle in answering Parliamentary Questions? She clearly does not know the principle, but it is to cover as little as possible while concealing the interesting bits.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord knows a great deal more about a bikini than I do.
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1193
 

Water Supply: Ofwat

3.24 pm

Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have any proposals to change the powers of Ofwat in view of the recent shortages in water supply.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the powers of Ofwat have been adjusted by legislation from time to time, most recently in the Water Act 2003, so that the regulator is best equipped to regulate the industry in the interests of customers. There are no proposals for further changes at present.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Will he confirm that Thames Water, probably the worst culprit among the water companies, loses 30 per cent of its water in leaks, which is enough to supply almost 3 million households? Will he further confirm that, while we already have a hosepipe ban and a drought order is on the way, Thames Water's profits are 30 per cent up and the company has been given the go-ahead to put up its bills by 24 per cent above inflation? Will he accept that customers are fed up with being conned by a monopoly supplier when the only protection that they have is Ofwat, which is not fit for purpose in doing that job?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is right that customers of Thames have every right to be angry, but the fact is that Ofwat is the regulator and it has the enforcement powers. Both Houses of Parliament decided that Ofwat was best equipped to do this. It is not for us to tell Ofwat how to do the job. It has the necessary enforcement powers to bring about change.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister implies that the Government have no powers, but I recall that under the Water Act 2003 they gave themselves the powers to require water companies to bring in water shortage plans. Does the Minister agree that it is time that the Government enforced that requirement? Have any steps been taken along those lines? It is time that the Government stopped passing the buck back to Ofwat and the water companies.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, frankly that is an unfair question. First, the water companies have a duty to have 25-year plans for their area, taking into account potential development. Parliament has put that on a statutory basis, and there is no get-out from it. On the noble Baroness's second question, I go back to what I said. Ofwat has been put there by Parliament to regulate and do a job. It is not for us to second-guess Ofwat. It has the powers to impose financial penalties and to secure compliance by means of enforcement orders.
 
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1194
 

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, unusually, I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his criticisms. Is not part of the answer not to give the regulator more powers, but for him to exercise his powers and to move towards a system of metering? It is ridiculous that the water companies are able to get their income regardless of how much is consumed by the consumer. All the evidence is that water metering would reduce consumption by some 10 per cent. Surely the Government have a responsibility there.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have no plans to enforce water metering. Some 28 per cent of households are on a meter. Meters can be fitted free of charge. Anyone can ask their water company to put a meter in. They can see how it goes for a year and at the end of that year if they want to go back to the previous system they are entitled to do that. All new properties are built with meters. There will be leaks; there is no question about that. The length of the water network in England and Wales alone, leaving aside the 24 million connections, is the same as the distance from the Earth to the moon.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain in a little more detail exactly what enforcement powers Ofwat has? How much could Thames Water be fined in extremis? Is it possible for Thames Water's whole business to be removed from the company and given, allocated or sold to another company if it fails to perform?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand that since the rules changed in April 2005, Ofwat has been able to impose a financial penalty of up to 10 per cent of turnover, which is substantial. I am not sure whether that could be repeated over a given time span, which would make it very substantial indeed.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of the problems of Thames Water arise from the fact that most of its underground pipework was installed 85 years before the company was created? In that respect, it is unfair to criticise the company as though it was solely responsible for the problems. Does he agree that another problem that affects us all is that Thames Water, like any of the other water companies, is unable to cut off supplies from people who wilfully refuse to pay their bills?

---