Official Report 225KB pdf
Good morning. I welcome members, the public and the press to the meeting and remind colleagues and people in the gallery to switch off their mobile phones. I have received apologies only from Karen Gillon.
I have read the latest submission, which rather damns the minister's proposals with faint praise. On balance, would putting complaints to water customer consultation panels be a good move? Does the Scottish Consumer Council believe—as is possibly suggested—that other things could be done, and that complaints could be dealt with by Consumer Direct, for example?
We must start from the current position. For the reasons that we outlined in our evidence, which the committee has already put in its report and which I will not therefore go through again, we do not think that complaints should sit with the water industry commissioner's office. We must not forget that it is for Scottish Water to deal with complaints in the first place, because the customers are its customers. The debate is about where complaints go if they are not resolved by Scottish Water. There is merit in the argument that in principle they should be handled by a consumer body.
Thank you. I do not know whether anyone wants to follow up on those points.
I am interested in the idea that there will be more complaints. I can see that having publicity and making people aware of the complaints process might tip them over to make the effort. You say that the industry is becoming more complex, with competition being brought in. However, for domestic customers, the situation should remain exactly the same, so why would there be more complaints from domestic customers?
Panels will deal with complaints for the whole customer base. Domestic customers will become more aware, and I would expect complaints to rise through the increased accountability that we are building in with the commission and through increased awareness of the bodies that are providing services. With the advent of competition, things will continue to develop in that area, and there is a danger that the panels will have a big workload because of an increased number of complaints from the business sector.
Would it be appropriate to give business sector complaints to the panels? Not everyone agrees with that.
Whether the panels should also cover business customers is an issue that goes wider than complaints; it concerns the entire remit of the panels rather than just the complaints-handling function. I know that Ian Smith does not agree with me but, as an organisation that represents domestic consumers, we have always said that there are tensions for an organisation that needs to find policy solutions for both consumers and businesses. For example, the policy solutions for unwinding the existing cross-subsidy between the two sectors might be different for each group and it would be quite hard to bring those things together. That is part of a wider debate about the role of consumer organisations in general. If the customer panels are to have a remit that covers both domestic and business customers, I am not sure that it would help matters to split their remit for one particular function. The debate is wider than just complaints handling and is about all the panels' functions.
Why are you not in favour of extending the remit of the customer panels to include the representation of non-domestic customers, given that that might create a level playing field for non-domestic and domestic customers?
We do not agree. Our position is that businesses have more buying power and more resources to voice their feelings, whereas individual consumers are non-homogeneous. Domestic consumers are disparate, are often disadvantaged and are not grouped together in any way. That is why organisations such as ours have been set up. I take the point that some issues that small businesses face are similar to those of domestic consumers, but they might require different solutions.
That is true, but the panels will become much stronger and will be given more teeth, which is what you want to see develop. In that context, if an organisation that represents big business lobbies the Parliament, surely MSPs can turn around and say, "Sorry, but you need to work through the panels." If the panels are the place where solutions are discussed and put forward for customers of all types, both domestic and non-domestic, might not there be an advantage in getting everyone together to work out solutions?
No. In our experience, big business does not come to the Parliament but meets behind closed doors with civil servants. Businesses can put in much more resources and time. To take an example from another area, I have done a lot of work on the Communications Act 2003 and on media ownership in Scotland, which involves some big business interests. I go along to those meetings on my own, but Scottish Media Group has a team of 20 people. That is the level of resources that SMG can put in for behind-the-scenes lobbying, for example in the current review of public service broadcasting.
Will you clarify how you think complaints from non-domestic users should be addressed? It cannot all happen behind closed doors. There must be a process.
I have not really given the issue any thought because our remit is to advocate solutions for domestic consumers.
Are you not bothered how non-domestic customers are dealt with as long as they are not covered by the customer panels?
It is not that we are not bothered but that we have focused our attention on domestic consumers. However, businesses that decide to take on a different supplier from Scottish Water will have recourse to the water industry commission under their licence agreement.
My only other question is on whether any powers need to be added to the powers of the water customer consultation panels. Is a requirement to consult the panels before a charging policy is issued the main additional power that the panels would need if they are to be given powers to deal with complaints?
There are other issues, but that is one power that we want to see in the bill, and we are grateful that the committee has put that in its report. The minister has given a commitment to ensure that the panels have adequate resources to do the other parts of their work, so that complaints will not dominate their agenda. I have to say that I have heard that before, when the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed. With the best will in the world, different people saw that the panels needed different resources to get established and to get up and running. If you put other things in to underpin in statute what the panels can do, you are committing the Executive and ministers to resourcing those issues. I am probably not making myself very clear.
Could you give us an example of the specific initial powers that you want?
The panels could be given a statutory role in examining emerging issues, rather than just in dealing with complaints. For example, energywatch and Postwatch have statutory requirements to publish forward work programmes, which the Utilities Act 2000 stipulates must contain
I take it that you are talking about sharing information about complaints trends and about the implications for service improvement, which you have highlighted as a starred item in your paper. That has to be spelled out quite clearly.
Absolutely. In that respect, it does not really matter who deals with complaints, as long as someone is dealing with an individual consumer's problem. However, I would expect the trends and issues that come to Scottish Water to be analysed and examined—I am sure that Scottish Water does that. Whoever handles complaints, the information needs to be shared among the customer group, the regulator and Scottish Water. Complaints are not the only aspect of implementing a policy, but they cannot be separated from policy, and it is certainly true that complaints data will generate policy issues.
I apologise for being a few minutes late. I guess that you are really the customers' voice out of today's witnesses. In their submission, the water customer consultation panels say that the set of changes that the minister has proposed
There are two issues there. First, there is the issue of signposting consumers to the right place and having a clear and simple system, and I will return to that. Secondly, on the water customer consultation panels' evidence, there must be one avenue by which consumers can approach panels. Separating out practical complaints from policy complaints is an artificial distinction. Complaints can result in policy change.
Do you think that there should be a snappy name for where consumers go with their complaints?
Yes.
If I understand this correctly, Scottish Water is saying that if people are not satisfied with what it is doing, it will refer them to the office of the convener of the water customer consultation panels. That does not really get the message out to the Scottish public. There could be a specific, snappily named body that people could approach with their complaints—perhaps waterwatch or something like that.
I would agree with that. Energywatch and Postwatch both have posh names—that is the sort of name that consumers go by. I made a submission to the Executive's transport division a couple of years ago regarding representation and ferries. It went nowhere, but we asked for a consumer body to be called ferrywatch. It is all about public awareness and accessibility. It is only a name, but people need a simple, one-stop place to go to, and it must be accessible to them.
Presumably, that is why the organisation in England and Wales is called WaterVoice.
Yes.
Thank you very much for coming and for being prepared to be grilled in detail on your submissions. It has been very helpful to us.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome the second panel of witnesses, who are from Scottish Water: Professor Alan Alexander, who is the chair; Dr Jon Hargreaves, who is the chief executive; and Cheryl Black, who is the customer service director. I thank the witnesses for their initial and supplementary submissions, which members have in front of them. I invite members to kick off with questions.
What are the witnesses' experiences of handling complaints? On an operational basis, what proportion of the complaints that you receive are you able to deal with? What proportion relates to practical water policy matters?
I will start by giving an indication of the scale of the issue. Scottish Water receives about a million contacts per annum, of which only around 1 per cent eventually become what can be described as complaints. Only a tiny fraction of those complaints have to be referred beyond Scottish Water.
The proportion of complaints that relate to policy issues changes, depending on what is happening in the industry. For example, the analysis of complaints that the WIC's office provided indicates that last year there was a dramatic rise in the number of complaints that related to charges. That happened around the time when the way in which business customers are charged changed significantly. Many complainants asked why standing charges were high, rather than about personal bills. There is a standard answer to most of those questions, because they simply raise a policy issue.
Would it be fair to say that Scottish Water resolves internally most complaints about operational or practical matters relating to the supply of water and sewerage services, but issues relating to policy matters are likely to pass out of your hands?
Yes. The vast majority of complaints relate to an issue that a customer has with their premises or their company's bill. However, in the context of the hot topics of the moment, such as development constraints, a developer might ask why they cannot build a property on a particular site. That issue relates to capital funding for Scottish Water, which is not a matter that we can dictate, so the most effective solution would be to refer the complainant to the policy decisions that relate to our capital investment programme. We do not want to fob customers off by saying, "Sorry, guv. It's not our fault and we can't do anything about it." We want to ensure that people understand who took the decision and why they took it. However, we receive a very small number of such complaints.
A large number of policy issues arrive on my desk or Jon Hargreaves's desk. In cases in which we can simply explain the policy, of course we do so. There is a distinction to be made between asking, "Have we handled the matter right?" and asking, "Is the customer happy?" The answer to the first question might be yes, but the answer to the second might be no. At that stage the correspondence needs to be referred to a single body, which will decide what should happen next.
What I am trying to get at is the nature of the material that eventually passes into the hands of those at the next level—the panels that we are talking about taking that role. Are we talking about issues to do with the practical application of services, or is the vast majority of what will be passed to them essentially to do with policy and policy application?
The vast majority of complaints that come into the water customer consultation panels' offices under the proposed scheme would be directed straight back to Scottish Water and we would resolve them. If it is a matter on which, as Alan Alexander described, we felt that it would help the customer to give them further information about policy, strategy or whatever, the customer panels could direct the complaint on to the commissioner's office or wherever else is appropriate. They would ensure that the response got to the customer.
The type of problem that remains unresolved and must be dealt with ultimately by the process that we are talking about will be very different from the typical problem that is reported.
You are right. The complaints that end up going all the way and require an investigation—currently by the WIC's office—tend to be about issues such as investment, when somebody does not like the fact that we are going to build a sewage works somewhere and they want it to be built in Carlisle or somewhere else. We increasingly go and visit customers when we see that a tricky issue is likely to arise. That often defuses the situation as we are able to explain the position much better in person than we can on paper. That is not reflected in the statistics, but we are undertaking more and more such visits.
Guilty.
In a few cases—it is a handful of cases—the matter currently ends up at the WIC's office and in future such matters will end up at a WCCP. What the investigation calls for in effect is our file—we are asked what evidence we have given and what options we have considered. A decision, backed up by that evidence, will be made for or against us. It is inevitable that most of the cases go back to a policy decision in the past. For example, in the case of a treatment plant, it may be the case that the regulatory regime that we operate under was fixed some years ago. The fact may be that we do not have the money to build a tertiary treatment plant and everybody, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, is telling us that primary basic treatment will do the trick. That is about providing value for money for customers. Those are the intractable issues.
If there are issues that you cannot resolve, is it fair to say that resolution will often be difficult or impossible?
There is a distinction between whether a person is unhappy with the process or unhappy with the outcome. From our point of view, if we are clear that we have done everything that we can to resolve the issue and have explained why we cannot satisfy the customer, the customer's concern is not about the process but about the outcome. Any organisation that deals with complaints finds that there comes a point when what the customer is unhappy about is not what the organisation has done but what it was not possible to do.
Or whether you have dealt with a complaint in such a way that they feel that the issues have been addressed effectively.
Absolutely.
I want to ask you a couple of questions that I asked a previous witness. First, for the domestic customer, should the process be complex, given that nothing is really changing?
I do not think that it should be complex, for the reasons that I gave earlier. We need to give the consumer a direct single route for action when we do not resolve their complaints. I have sympathy with the view that Richard Lochhead expressed about the number of bodies that apparently exist. The way to deal with that is to say to customers, "If you are not satisfied with the primary service provider, this is where you go and after that the handling is the panel's responsibility." The panel then has to decide what complaint it is dealing with and act as the primary filter. If it is dealing with a service complaint that Scottish Water ought to have resolved, but has not, it will come back to us, ask for the file, consider it and see whether it can improve matters. If it is dealing with something relating to policy or the tariff structure, the complaint will go elsewhere. The process has to be seamless as far as the customer is concerned. The customer has to say, "That is the box that says ‘complaints about water' and that is where we put it. Someone decides the routing after that." The process can be simplified in that way.
Do you agree with the minister's proposal that all complaints from the domestic and non-domestic sectors would go automatically to the water customer consultation panels should you not resolve them?
Absolutely. From our point of view, there has to be a one-stop shop for all customers. I listened to what Trisha McAuley said earlier. There is a distinction to be drawn between the big customers, such as BP and Caledonian Paper, which have the kind of representative bodies and the muscle that she described and—given how competition is being introduced—a large number of our non-domestic 160,000 customers, who have much more in common with you and me as domestic consumers. The starting point has to be that if there is a complaints procedure, we do not discriminate between our customers; they choose whether they use the procedure.
Do the panels have the powers to address those issues? Your submission states that under the current system
The fact that the panels are being given the authority to handle complaints from customers almost implies that power. From our point of view the objective is to end up with a satisfied customer, so Scottish Water is not going to ignore a recommendation from the panels or the commissioner; if it did so, all that would happen is that the customer would continue to complain. Enshrined in the proposals is sufficient authority for the panels to come back and discuss further solutions for the customer. Nothing more is particularly required. I cannot think of any complaints for which the commissioner's office had to issue any formal instruction for us to change our position. We all share the objective of satisfying the customer as far as is humanly possible.
What makes us different from England and Wales is that we are talking about public money. Where complaints get really protracted is where compensation is involved. If we give WCCPs the ultimate power to instruct Scottish Water to do something, which inevitably costs money, we have to take into account the fact that we are spending public money, not shareholders' money or dividend money that is being diverted for service. We see an increasing tendency—as we do throughout society—for people to claim for wrongs that have been done. I am not saying that that is wrong, but we are seeing more and more of it.
I presume that an individual complaint of the kind that you describe could be precisely the kind of issue that might kick across to become a general policy issue. The customer panels would want to address that sort of issue. That takes us back to the previous point about how you identify upcoming issues and problems that consumers generally have as opposed to one-off individual issues.
Yes. It is right that the minister is directing the WCCPs to make that forward-looking issue one for ministers because that is where it should sit. It is not a responsibility for Scottish Water.
It is worth adding something about the way in which Scottish Water operates with the customer panels at the moment, despite the fact that they do not yet have any responsibility for dealing with complaints. We share the trend data about complaints with them on a regular basis and we discuss jointly the upcoming issues for customers. We are already operating in that way.
Further to that, one of the concerns that the panels brought up was that there might not be adequate resourcing to look at policy research issues in particular. If the panels are given a strengthened role in scrutinising policy objectives and looking at complaints that have a policy angle, do you foresee implications for Scottish Water in that there might be a mismatch of resourcing and expertise between you and the panels, which might be under-resourced?
The answer must be that, whatever happens about the handling of complaints, Scottish Water must continue to provide the first line of resolution. Therefore, nothing should change from our point of view. If there is then a need for policy considerations to be addressed as a result of the pattern of complaints, it is proposed that that will be a matter for the panels. Common sense suggests that they would have to be resourced to do that if that is what is expected of them.
It can only help us and customers if the panels carry out that work. Far from giving us additional work, it is more the case that it will be easier for us to discuss matters with them. They will have the resource and the information to debate some of the issues that we are raising with them at the moment. Their work will be quite complementary.
It should be made clear to customers where the money to fund this is coming from. We should be transparent because customers will be paying for the panels. Unless someone has an idea to fund them through general taxation, I understand that they will be paid for, as the water industry commissioner's office is, by Scottish Water and therefore by customers. There is an issue of accountability and customers need transparency because this is their body and they are paying for it.
How easy is it for customers to complain, and to what extent do they know where to go to make a complaint? Given that the water bill is also the council tax bill, I assume that a number of people must complain to the local authorities. To what extent do local councils refer complaints to you or do people who want to complain get lost in the ether?
The mark of a successful customer-focused business is that it is easy to complain to. That is something that we are striving for. At the moment, the situation for customers is confused. That said, people can always contact us at Scottish Water. The customer consultation panels are visible in communities, yet, if customers speak to the panels about complaints, they are directed to the water industry commissioner.
The suggestion that Richard Lochhead made earlier about having a snappy name is a useful one. In England and Wales, the complaints body had a long convoluted, technical-sounding name—I am sorry, but I cannot remember what it was. Giving the body the name "WaterVoice" helped people to focus on its activities and made it is clear what it does. In the recent debates in England and Wales about pricing, WaterVoice has been effective in getting its voice heard on issues such as affordability. It is taken seriously by politicians and the media, and customers—particularly domestic customers—know that there is a voice out there for them.
It is worth pointing out that we get one crack at directly addressing our customers. That is when the bill goes out and we can put one piece of paper into the envelope along with the bill. We try very hard to give people as much information as we can about the content of the bill. We set out what the water element is of the bill that they are being asked to pay, how the bill is constructed in terms of what we spend and what someone can do if they need to contact us. We try to maximise the amount of clear information that we give out.
I want to pick up on Jon Hargreaves's comment about the proposed change to WaterVoice's name. Can you clarify what is going to happen? Was your reference to the consumer group that was mentioned by the first panel?
Yes. WaterVoice is changing its name to one that makes it sound like it has a consumer council activity. It would appear to be distancing itself even further from Office of Water Services, which is the water industry commissioner equivalent down south. Perhaps Alan Sutherland can give the committee a better answer. To be honest, I cannot remember the details.
I want to get some sort of feel about the current way in which complaints come in and are dealt with. You said that you have 1 million contacts and that most of the complaints that are resolved are operational ones. The WIC's office will redirect stuff to you about operational matters and a tiny amount of contacts—which, by and large, will be operational in nature—are redirected to you by the local authorities. How is all that contact logged, accounted for, audited and passed on? Who is it passed on to? Are there formal mechanisms for doing that?
Contacts that arrive at Scottish Water by telephone, e-mail or letter are logged on our customer management system. The vast majority of issues are resolved through the normal process and the customers are satisfied. For the small percentage of contacts—1 per cent or whatever—that turn into complaints, either a customer writes directly to say that they are unhappy about something or, in the course of the phone call, a resolution cannot be achieved. There is then an escalation process; we have a customer relations team whose role is to handle and record the next stage of those cases.
Believe it or not, we get a number of thank-you letters. Perhaps we should have brought some.
We get more thank-you letters in this industry than in any other industry that I have worked in before.
It is relief.
If it is so awful, it must be nice when it stops.
I have another question on the idea that domestic and non-domestic complaints should all be referred to one source. There was some debate about whether that would level the playing field. To me, it seems that doing that would take out the unfair advantage of extra resourcing that some players have. Would you see it as levelling the playing field if domestic and non-domestic complaints were directed in one way?
At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that, from our point of view, they are all our customers and, if they have a problem, we should try to resolve it. After that, it is important to keep the process as simple as possible for the customer, whoever the customer is. The process involves a combination of the customer's response and what the postbox—which, under the present proposal, would be the WCCPs—decides to do with it. That keeps it as simple as it needs to be for customers without depriving individual customers of other routes if they wish to take them.
The main difference between business and domestic customers is the billing. We bill businesses ourselves and bill domestic customers through councils. Through the process of harmonisation, there has been quite a lot of concern in that area. If those issues are stripped out—they have died down significantly in the past six to 12 months—the sort of complaints that we get from domestic and non-domestic customers are about the same things. We might, for instance, get a complaint about flooding in a street from the owner of a corner shop and from householders in the same street. We might, similarly, get a complaint about odours from a sewage works from a pub on a street corner that is near a sewage works and from householders in the same street.
Let us return to the process and the points that were raised by Richard Lochhead and others. When you talk about people contacting Scottish Water to make complaints, are you talking about Scottish Water's head office or about the local office as well? People often pick up the phone and call their local office. If they do that and are not satisfied, are they told what they can do next?
If one of our customers speaks to anybody at Scottish Water—whether it be at our headquarters or elsewhere—the member of staff should own that problem and create the link back to the customer service department to ensure that we record it as a case and follow it up with the customer, rather than ask the customer to go and find their way into the organisation. By and large, contact is made via our main helpdesk or through letters to our head office. We now have very few local offices that are equipped to handle those contacts. We would either direct the customer or own the case ourselves.
I suggest that we should not call the new contact "Watergate".
I counsel against calling it "Waterpan".
Let us move swiftly on. I thank our three witnesses for answering our questions this morning. That has been very helpful. We will take a couple of minutes' break before we welcome our third panel.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our third panel of witnesses, who are Alan Sutherland, the water industry commissioner for Scotland; Ian Smith, the convener of the water customer consultation panels; and Dr John Sawkins, the deputy convener of the south east water customer consultation panel. I thank them for their written submissions, which members have read.
People are concerned that if the complaints function is handed over to the customer panels, there will be blurring with their present work. My understanding is that there will be a discrete office to handle complaints, under the chairmanship of the person who also happens to be convener of the customer panels. I do not see a danger of blurring, but I am interested in the witnesses' views on that.
I say up front that we welcome unequivocally the minister's proposals. Panel members would not welcome having to deal with complaints, individually or collectively—doorbells would ring on Saturday nights, which would not be terribly convenient. It is important that there be a clear one-stop shop for complaints, so the best way to do that within the Scottish structure is to create a central office to which complaints can be referred. That office can operate as the mechanism for pushing complaints to Scottish Water or for putting complaints about policy issues alongside the ingathering of information, which the panels do anyway.
I endorse that. It is essential for consumers that there be a one-stop shop. To pick up on what Alan Alexander said, the office will act as a filter.
Alan Sutherland is obviously keen to keep putting the boot in to Scottish Water and to make what are—to some people, including me—unfair comparisons with the water authorities south of the border. I ask him to describe any comparisons between authorities that he has done in respect of handling and definition of complaints and the various processes.
I can comment on the information that is available on the number of complaints that are handled within the timescales that are set out in the codes of practice in Scotland and in England and Wales, which are identical. We audit the qualitative aspects of Scottish Water's performance in handling complaints, such as clarity of answers and responsiveness to and empathy with customers. Obviously, we do not carry out a qualitative analysis of companies in England and Wales and therefore cannot make comparisons on that basis. It is important to understand that customer service reports draw comparisons in respect of where we are at present and that, in so doing, it is important to set a baseline. How else would we know whether the situation is getting worse, better or going sideways? It is important to have an objective baseline, which is what the report on Scottish Water's first year established. I hope and expect that the situation will improve.
My next question is for Ian Smith and John Sawkins. There are five key players in the water industry in Scotland, which I suggest is a complex system for a small country, and there is a debate about whether the proposed changes should go ahead. Are there too many players or, to get round that complexity, do we simply have to ensure that, in the public eye, there is a one-stop shop to which people can go with a complaints?
I do not know how appropriate COWP might be.
Richard Lochhead mentioned five key players, but I think that there are a good deal more than that. It is important that customers are clear about where they go if there is a complaint or if something cannot be resolved by Scottish Water in the first instance. They do not need to know about the functioning of the drinking water inspectorate, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and all the rest of it. If I turn on my tap and discover a problem, I will go to Scottish Water in the first instance. However, where would I go if the problem was not resolved at that stage? There must be a clear answer to that question.
To underline what John Sawkins said, I will quote from the foreword to WaterVoice's programme for this year, which was written by its chairman, Maurice Terry. He captures in a few words what we would want the panel's role to be. He talks about
On the WIC, you say that a recently agreed consultation code has been drawn up between WCCP and Scottish Water but that you had no role in that process. Given that you have a responsibility for dealing with customer complaints, do you think that you should have been more proactive?
That code was something that ministers asked the panels to draw up; we were not given a role in the process. When we sought clarification of the situation, we were told that because it is unclear who should deal with any complaints about consultation, we should be working on something in this regard but that the Water Services etc (Scotland) Bill would clarify the situation.
That is interesting. In that case, I would like the other witnesses to say whether they think that the consultation code should be produced in a firm form that people can understand and, perhaps, be written into the bill.
The current consultation code is statutory under the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. It has been brought about through Scottish Water's initiative but we have the responsibility of working with Scottish Water on approval of the code.
Is Dr Sawkins happy with that?
Yes.
My question is to the WCCPs—or Cowpwatch or whatever the organisation will be called in the future. Through the bill, ministers will give panels a more central role in examining policy objectives when they are being drafted. Will you be concerned primarily with social justice policy objectives, the economy or the environment?
We have tried to give appropriate and almost equal weight to all the policy dimensions. We have probably taken a stronger role on environmental issues than was expected. We spent much time on considering social justice dimensions in relation to the inclusion agenda. Much of the work that we undertook early doors has awoken a United Kingdom debate about the affordability of water charges. We seem to have influenced WaterVoice to examine affordability across the piece.
The economic concerns will be reflected in more depth when you work with non-domestic customers.
We assume that we have that policy framework. It is fair to say that the panels have not tired of reminding Scottish Water of its sustainability obligations. One of our panel members is active in Scottish Water's sustainability group and he reports to all the panels. We have tried to take as broad a view of sustainability as we can and to ensure that it influences everything that we consider. I do not think that much more needs to be done to focus our role on sustainability in the three aspects that you described.
You would prefer the system to remain voluntary—you do not want anything to be put in the bill.
Changing the law would add nothing to the present position. We have a sound basis for what we do. In that, we reflect several key interests among Scottish Water customers and the wider community.
I have a couple of questions about who takes up complaints. I have concluded that sending everyone to the same person to complain would provide clarity. That is straightforward. However, we have the possibility of retail competition for non-domestic customers. Should complaints in that market take the same route? Could it be argued that they need a slightly different route? I am hoping for an answer from Alan Sutherland or Ian Smith—or Dr Sawkins, if you have all thought about this. The issue of switching suppliers was raised, and whether a complaints system should kick in at the point at which there is a licensing regime.
To give the others time to think about the best answer, I shall give a glib answer, which is that there are two things to consider. There are complaints about the customer service aspect of what you described, and there are complaints about the policy aspects. I think that we can take those through the same route. However, there are also complaints about licensing arrangements, which are probably more appropriate for the commission. I do not know whether that opens up a can of worms for the other witnesses.
I do not like thinking on my feet on this issue. Presumably, trying to explore the issue of complaints about the way in which the licensing regime is run and the licences are given out and so on—
It was suggested at the first stage of evidence that the proposed system would not be sufficiently robust, and that if somebody did have a complaint about the licensing process and the allocation of licences, there was not a clear route for them to complain. I am trying to pick that up, because it is a complaint. I would like to be clear about whether we have got that right in the bill, before we debate the detail of the bill.
I think that the grey matter has worked a bit better. There is something in the minister's proposals that is very powerful and that we have not discussed at all this morning. One of his proposals is that I will be under an obligation to come back to Parliament every year with a report that will analyse how the five different complications work. The way in which the licensing regime works could be a heading in that report. There would be joint preparation of such a report with the commission.
As a point of principle, the new commission must be very clear about what its job is and is not. There is a temptation to draw any office of this sort into the day-to-day micromanagement of the body for which it is supposed to be the economic regulator. If some sort of pseudo-complaint role were given to it, it might be tempted to be drawn into micromanagement, and we would take our eye off the ball again. Perhaps—again, I do not like making such things up on the hoof—the first point of complaint should be the commission for the licensing regime. Stage 2 of the process would have to involve some other body.
Are we talking about a complaint about how a license is issued or administered, or are we talking about a customer's experience as a customer of that licensed new entrant to the market?
I was thinking of both situations. I was thinking about my experiences in the energy market as a consumer, but not from the non-domestic point of view. I am just trying to work out where each kind of complaint would go.
The second example should be fairly straightforward. I cannot see any reason why a business customer who chooses to switch their supplier should have less right than a private customer to complain or to make representations about the level of service that they are getting. If that person has complained to their supplier and is still not happy, they should be able to go to someone else. I suggest that the panels—or whatever they will be called in the future—would be appropriate. I do not think that that is a particular problem.
I simply wanted you to put that on the record. Unless we delve into the matter, it will not be 100 per cent clear.
On the first question, I have been assured by ministers that once the function is clear, the form will follow from it and will be adequately resourced.
So you are not necessarily considering the cost of the current system. You are doing everything from scratch.
I am sure that those who give advice on the customers' levy to ministers and to Scottish Water on behalf of the customers will, for comparative purposes, consider existing expenditure. However, it would be quite wrong simply to take the current situation and assume that that is how things will be in the future. It is only right to examine the situation properly.
If the panels' successor will be funded by a levy on customers, how will that work for non-domestic customers?
The levy is on Scottish Water for all customers. You must appreciate that we already carry out a great deal of activity with non-domestic customers. That area is not new to us.
I think that we have exhausted our questions. I thank all the witnesses for attending the meeting and for making advance submissions. The evidence session has been very useful; indeed, I am interested to see that everyone sat through it all. I hope that it has cleared some matters up—it has certainly allowed the committee to go into the matter in some depth.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—