Electricity Bill

HL Deb 06 July 1989 vol 509 cc1340-75

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Clause 38 [Consent required for construction etc. of generating stations]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 84: Page 31, line 5, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak very briefly to this amendment. I wish simply to ask about subsection (4). The clause as a whole refers to consents which are required. Then we are given a reasonable and specific statement in subsection (2) about exemptions, and a possible modification of that under subsection (3). But, in addition to that, and almost as if none of the rest had been written, we read a statement that the Secretary of State can make any other exemption he wishes. One is therefore slightly suspicious as to why we need this catch-all subsection, or, to put it the other way around, why we need the two explicit subsections if this one is relevant.

It may be that the Government have in mind one or two other matters which may have gone into specific clauses but which they now think are covered by subsection (4). The easiest way to flush that out is to suggest that we do not need subsection (4). I beg to move.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for raising this issue. It was of course raised in Committee. First, perhaps I may make two general points and then give the noble Lord an example of a situation where what he calls a "catch-all" subsection is needed.

I should like to stress once again that any kind of power station development exempted from the need for the Secretary of State's consent will still be subject to all the requirements of the planning Acts—indeed, I think that we discussed that matter before the dinner break—and to the amenity obligation contained in Schedule 9. That will apply to any exemptions which may result from orders made under subsection (4), in just the same way as it will apply to exemptions for developments which are below the threshold in subsection (2).

The other point I should like to make relates to the concern previously expressed that the Government may be taking on powers, through an enabling provision, which would not be subject to further reference to Parliament. That is not, however, the case because the exemptions may only be made through orders which must be placed before Parliament, which will have the opportunity to express a view on them.

The noble Lord may wish to hear an example of the sort of situation we have in mind which this particular subsection could deal with. The provision will enable any generating station on offshore oil and gas installations, which generate for the operators' own use, to be exempted from the consent requirement. There are some installations—one example is the Magnus field—which have a generating station of greater capacity than the 50 megawatts threshold above which consent will be necessary.

As such installations are fully regulated under offshore legislation, we do not think that it is desirable to introduce this additional control over them. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see that we have definite constraints on this matter, but that there are definite reasons why we wish to retain the subsection.

Lord Peston

My Lords, it is kind of the Minister to give such a clear and cogent example. I still believe that logically what is in subsections (2) and (3) could be construed to be covered by subsection (4), and so in drafting terms I believe that I am still right. Having said that, I entirely accept what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8 [Consents under sections 38 and 39]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 85: Page 103, line 33, at end insert ("and, if not, what objections have been raised").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships long. Paragraph 1(2)(b) provides that the application must state whether all necessary wayleaves have been agreed with owners and so on. I do not need to trouble your Lordships with the exact words. The sub-paragraph concludes: and shall be supplemented, if the Secretary of State so directs, by such additional information as may be specified in the direction".

I should like some comment on the point, which I would expect to be the case, that the Secretary of State when providing any such additional information would be bound to say a word or two about objections and their nature. He would find it hard to get away with not doing that. I should like to hear a word or two as to whether I am right that where it says "such additional information" it is possible, if not necessary, that the objection that my noble friend and I raise could come under that heading.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I do not believe that there is a necessity for the amendment because adequate provision has been made in paragraph 6 of Schedule 8 for cases where wayleaves have not been agreed. This provides for the Secretary of State to tell the applicant that he will not proceed with the application for his consent for the line until the applicant has applied to him under Schedule 4 paragraph 5 to acquire a necessary wayleave. Alternatively, the Secretary of State may grant consent for the line but subject to the condition that work may not proceed until he gives permission as appears in Schedule 8 paragraph 6(1)(b). In deciding whether to give such permission he will take into account the extent to which the necessary wayleaves have been granted by that time. He will also ensure that permission will be given to proceed with any work on part of the line only where that can be done without prejudicing the outcome of unresolved wayleave problems on another part of the line.

It might be helpful if I point out that paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 sets out the procedure where a wayleave has not been agreed voluntarily and application for a necessary wayleave is made to the Secretary of State. Under the paragraph the Secretary of State may not grant such a necessary wayleave without affording the owners and occupiers of the land an opportunity to be heard by a person appointed by him. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, again I than the Minister for enlightening me on what this complex schedule means. He is right that the worry my noble friend and I have will be dealt with by later clauses. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 86. Page 104, line 37, after ("shall,") insert ("in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to a rather large group of amendments which consists of Amendments Nos. 87, 89 and 91 to 105 inclusive. They are all government amendments, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 90 and 93 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and Amendment No. 95, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. I referred briefly yesterday to the package of amendments to Schedules 8 and 9 which the Government have now proposed following careful consideration of the concerns expressed to us and the consultations that we have held on the subject.

The amendment to Schedule 8 gives effect to the undertaking that I gave way back on 16th May to allow the regulations to be made under Schedule 8 to provide that an application for consent under Clauses 38 and 39 should be notified to the NCC if it relates to SSSIs or national nature reserves.

I turn to the amendments to Schedule 9. The Government have considered carefully all the environmental amendments which were tabled at an earlier stage. We have tried to have regard—if I may use those words—to the spirit of what was proposed while also bearing in mind the need for amendments capable of practical implementation.

I shall speak first to the second amendment to Schedule 9 which inserts the word "archaeological" in line 40 and takes up suggestions made in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Peston. It is a helpful clarification.

Yesterday in response to the amendment to Clause 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I undertook to take the amendment back and to return to the House on Third Reading with an amendment to the clause which would embody, so far as possible, the spirit of the amendment but which would correct its technical defects. I hope that, together with that undertaking, the Government's amendments to Schedules 8 and 9 will be seen as evidence of our wish to accommodate the main concerns of the environmental bodies, taking account of the new structure for the industry and the need to consider the practicalities of implementation. There are of course equivalent amendments to the parts of Schedule 9 affecting Scotland.

As I have reminded the House previously, the Bill's environmental provisions should not be seen in isolation. There are 15 Acts of Parliament and 14 European Community directives which bear on the industry's reaction to the environment. Taking account also of Schedule 9, as the Government now propose to amend it, the industry will be subject to explicit and strong duties. The Secretary of State will have a responsible and important role to play. I therefore commend the government amendments to the House.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 90 and 93. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for suggesting the amendments, but I do not believe that any further elaboration of the already wide coverage of Schedule 9 is necessary. One of the Government's amendments to Schedule 9 will, as I have said, add the word "archaeological". That addition provides a useful clarification and, arguably, fills a gap in the chronological range of its coverage. I now consider that coverage to be comprehensive and I doubt whether any court would take the view that a burial ground or a bridge, for example, would slip through the net on the argument that it was neither a building nor another object.

In addition to natural features, flora and fauna, Schedule 9 now encompasses buildings and other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest. It is difficult to envisage a structure or feature which does not now fall within that ambit. If a structure or building is of no architectural or historic interest but of interest only to an engineer, it is perhaps not of sufficient general importance to be included within the scope of Schedule 9. Of course, if something is of interest because of its key position in the development of technology, it would also hold a specific historic interest. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendments for those reasons.

Similarly with Amendment No. 95, the first part is unnecessary. Under Schedule 9, as the Government propose it should be amended, there will be a duty on those seeking consents under Clause 39 to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and to do what they reasonably can to mitigate the effects of their proposals on the natural beauty of the countryside. That will necessarily involve consideration of whether lines should be put underground, if the location is a sensitive one.

Clearly the applicant must also have regard to the cost of putting a line underground, since the cost ranges from 1.5 to 18 times as expensive as overhead lines, depending on voltage. There are other considerations too, such as the greater cost of locating and rectifying faults and the risk of cables being damaged in arable fields.

That brings me to the second part of the amendment and the second reason for my being unable to accept it. If there is an objective which on the face of it seems eminently desirable but which costs money, it is a natural temptation to look to the Government to pay. However, the Government in this sense means the taxpayer. I see no logic in requiring the taxpayer to contribute to the cost of putting lines underground. Putting lines underground for environmental reasons is as much a part of the cost of supplying electricity as modifying the design or layout of a proposed power station, to make it visually more acceptable, or indeed of fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment in order to reduce the emission of sulphur dioxide.

It is not at all clear why one should distinguish between different kinds of environmental costs and require taxpayers in some cases to contribute and in others not to do so. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment, although I acknowledge the intentions behind it.

I think it would be wrong to end on a negative note. I mentioned in Committee the good work which some boards have done in this field and perhaps I can given another example, this time from South Wales. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not present to hear this. In the past three years, in order to cater for the extension of supplies, the South Wales Board installed 620 kilometres of underground cable while dismantling only 135 kilometres of underground cable. Over the same period a greater length of overhead lines was dismantled—that is, about 65 kilometres—than was erected. Looking at the area boards as a whole, in 1987–88 they commissioned over 6,000 kilometres of lines, of which 4,000 were underground.

I believe that we should commend the industry for doing what it is already achieving in the field and acknowledge that underground lines are already an important consideration in their operations. As a result of the amendment that we are proposing in the Bill, we believe that this will continue to be such a consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I apologise to the House for returning to this matter so soon after we have debated the Water Bill at some length. We came to some rather unsatisfactory conclusions, but at least they were conclusions. The fault is not mine but that of the Government that the Electricity Bill followed so soon after the Water Bill.

I have been carrying out an educational process in which I have been trying to convince the Government Front Bench that engineering and architecture are not the same and not interchangeable, and that matters which are of engineering interest should not be referred to as if they were of architectural interest. They are not quite the same.

The House will know that I hold the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in high regard, but I must confess that my devotion trembled just for a moment when she seemed to me to say that engineering was not of great importance. I know that she did not mean quite that, but it was odd and, I think, significant that it could be said. Engineering is of great importance. There are objects, artefacts, amenities and things which are worth preserving and worth looking at, which have nothing to do with architecture at all. They are engineering objects and that is why I put "engineering interest" in my amendment.

Perhaps I may give an analogy which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before us but which will simply and locally illustrate what I mean. The building where we are this evening is of architectural rather than engineering interest and possibly historic interest—who can tell?—although the Victoria Tower is of engineering interest because it was the first skyscraper. Waterloo Bridge is of engineering interest, not architectural interest. The only architecture in it is wholly false: it pretends to be an arch when it is actually a beam. Never mind that. I am saying that architectural interest is a good thing, it should be supported; engineering interest is something else and ought at least to be recognised in this House and by the Government.

I am only interested in Amendments Nos. 90 and 93 which are mine and Nos. 91 and 100 in the name of the noble Baroness. I know that I ought to have repeated my amendments in relation to paragraph 2, but I did not do so in order not to clutter up the Marshalled List by putting in two sets of identical amendments.

I have taken the amendment which was already accepted under the Water Bill—that is my Amendment No. 90—and added to it the words "structures" and "engineering" because I fancied them from my own point of view. The noble Baroness has put down an amendment which adds "historic or archaeological". If she will not go all the way with me, surely she could go at least the length of adding "sites or other objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest". At least she could go that far; it is as far as the Water Bill has gone. It would be quite absurd if the restrictions laid upon the companies under the Water Bill were different from those laid on the companies under the Electricity Bill. To that extent I think that the noble Baroness must agree with me.

I shall now throw her a lifeline, because I am like that. In the recent Water Bill and under the Copyright Act when it was a Bill 18 months ago, we redefined the word "buildings" to include "structures". It was a lawyers' device, a typical Whitehall device, because it allowed my "structures" in without saying so in the sense of putting the word "engineering" on the face of the Bill. I should be happy if the Government would bring back my Amendment No. 90 at the next stage without the words "structures" or "engineering" and if they would also bring in an amendment which redefined "buildings" to include "structure". They would then recognise a difference between buildings and structures. That would make me happy, and I am sure they worry a little bit about that. They would also be following the precedent of the Copyright Act and the Water Bill.

I throw them this lifeline because I am by nature a kindly fellow. I see the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, sitting on the Front Bench. He was present during the debate on the Copyright Act so he will be able to explain the importance of all this and the semi-satisfactory compromise which was eventually reached. As a man who believes in compromise, I shall not press my amendments, important, useful and good though they are. However, I am willing to accept the notion that the Government could come back with something along the lines which I have indicated. I hope to receive such an assurance.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Norrie

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments Nos. 89, 91, 92, 94 and 96 to 105. I start by congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her commitment last night to introducing an environmental amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill on Third Reading.

The Minister knows from our almost continuous dialogue that Clause 4 had become a sticking point. It therefore came as an unexpected, though thoroughly welcome, surprise when she announced to the House that she would bring forward an amendment of her own. I thank the "green Baroness" as the noble Baroness was aptly nicknamed last night. I look forward to seeing the wording of that amendment at Third Reading. Incidentally, I hope the wording I offered in the debate last night will prove a helpful starting point.

I turn now to the amendments which the Government had previously tabled to Schedule 9. As I said yesterday, I am glad to welcome these. Amendments Nos. 89, 92 and 94 strengthen the operations of the environmental duty by clarifying the roles of the licence holders and the Secretary of State. The latter will have a duty to ensure that the licence holders have taken the environment into account. This is very welcome in principle, and I trust it will also bite in practice. I assume that this means that the Secretary of State will feel fully justified in refusing consent for power stations and other proposals which do not meet the criteria of this schedule, and that this will happen in practice. To the best of my knowledge such a thing has never happened in over 100 power station applications since the 1940s. I hope the Minister can reassure me that these duties are sufficiently strong and that she is confident herself that this is an entirely possible outcome. As ever, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Amendment No. 90, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and Amendment No. 91, standing in the name of my noble friend the Minister, make the welcome addition of archaeology to the scope of the environmental duty. This addresses a point which a number of noble Lords on this side and on the other side of the House raised during earlier discussions. I hope that my noble friend does not think I am nitpicking, but the only point I wish to make is that archaeological objects are very narrowly defined. That term suggests particular objects like burial chambers or standing stones. I believe the amendment ought ideally to refer to archaeological areas, to incorporate the site itself and its surroundings, as well as recognising the importance of historic landscapes and areas of land over which archaeological remains are scattered. I believe this is one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is endeavouring to make.

I note, too, the extension of the duty to the changes in the operation of power stations. This will pick up new practices and changes in operating standards, and will ensure that the environmental implications of these matters are properly taken into account. I particularly welcome the new proposed environmental statements which must be approved by the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and which will apply to all licence holders.

The new Schedule 9 will, if accepted by the House, be a considerable improvement on the old one. However, I must register a small twinge of regret that the Government have not been able to beef up the words "have regard to" when mentioning the environment. I still believe these words to be less than ideal. Nor have the Government been able to incorporate a reference to energy conservation in this schedule, in acknowledgement of the key role which energy conservation plays in fulfilling environmental objectives. I hope, however, that one effect of the Government's amendment to Clause 4 will be to emphasise the importance of energy efficiency and conservation in meeting environmental objectives.

Having said that, I welcome the Government's proposals. I believe that in conjunction with the very welcome promise by my noble friend the Minister, made in relation to Clause 4 last night, we have a Bill that has become a very much better Bill for the environment than it was when we received it a few weeks go.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I, too, certainly wish to congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing in these most welcome amendments. I think she has gone a considerable way to meet the concerns of those in your Lordships' House who have worried about these matters. I refer not only to noble Lords but also to interested people outside. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not think me churlish if I add one or two critical remarks, and also at least speak to my own amendment and say why I still think it is a good amendment. However, I do not wish the noble Baroness to misunderstand my remarks. I think she has done a great deal as regards moving in the right direction.

Before I speak to my own amendment, I wish to say a few words on Amendment No. 90, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. I support that amendment very strongly, for precisely the reasons that my noble friend supports it. I have underlined in particular the word "engineering". In this country we tend to underestimate the value of what one might almost call engineering antiquity as regards certain buildings, sites and structures. I am not referring now to the standard piece of British manufacturing industry which some of us tend to regard as an example of archaeology anyway, but, more seriously, our successors will wonder why very little is preserved so they can see the real thing rather than pictures.

I think my noble friend is right to emphasise engineering in particular. My noble friend was looking for a compromise, but I wonder whether there may be a verbal way out. We have included the word "archaeology", but there is a very well-defined discipline nowadays called "industrial archaeology". The noble Baroness may feel able to tell us that the term "archaeology" subsumes all forms of archaeology, including industrial archaeology. If that term includes industrial archaeology, it meets the engineering point, at least to some degree. I should prefer to have the word "engineering", but the term "archaeology" may include that. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention, although I know this is not necessary, to the fact that part of our history is a history of engineering structures and objects and it is well worth preserving to some degree.

Amendment No. 95 is included in this grouping, although there are so many amendments it is difficult to keep track of them. The amendment which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have put down does somewhat bring out the difference between the two sides of your Lordships' House. I join with the noble Baroness in commending the industry. In saying that environmental matters must be considered, none of us is saying that the industry is totally uninterested in the environment. If for no other reason than good public relations, or, less cynically, as good citizens, the people in the industry will want to take the environment into account to some degree. The example that the noble Baroness mentioned was a very good instance of that.

Let us assume that the industry will do a certain amount in this regard. The industry has done that in the past, and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Let us assume that the argument will be put forward with respect to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas that more lines ought to go underground.

There can be no doubt that what we are discussing here will involve expenses. There is no argument as regards that process involving costs. However, the point we are making is that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State, in representing public opinion, might on some occasions say that he would like to have more of the lines running underground because that is what the public wants. It is by no means obvious to me that the Secretary of State, in representing that opinion in the national interest, should ask the industry to meet the cost of that operation when the industry has done what it feels it can do in that regard. We feel it would be unreasonable of him to ask the industry to meet the cost.

Further, it is not obvious to me that the industry's consumers, as it were, should meet the cost. If we are talking about something that affects the general state of the environment, the exact word that the noble Baroness used applies. She talked about the taxpayer. We are talking about the taxpayer meeting the cost of something which is in the national interest. From Adam Smith to the present day, the fundamental proposition of taxation is that we tax in order to pay for things which are in the national interest. That is why we have a tax system in the first place.

We disagree with the noble Baroness, not in saying that no attention will be paid to the environment by the industry; but we believe that it would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to intervene on such occasions to say that, for very good reasons, he would like more line to go underground. However, we believe that the industry should then be able to say that if such a procedure is in the national interest the nation must pay for it. That is what our amendment states.

From the way the noble Baroness has spoken she will not agree with what I have said. However, she ought to know that there is a very strong logical case, which has a pedigree of at least 200 years, explaining why one would use the tax system to finance matters of national interest, of which this is one.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present when my noble friend Baroness Hooper moved the amendments. I welcome them, especially those which amend Schedule 9. I cannot refrain from being nostalgic because paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 is taken word for word from Section 37 of the 1957 Act. That is a section which I moved at the Report stage in another place in that year. I am glad to see that the concept which we put forward then has stood the test of time and is now being embellished and strengthened.

I particularly welcome Amendment No. 103. I should point out that that fastens responsibility upon the Secretary of State for ensuring that the environmental provisions are properly applied by those concerned and gives him certain powers if they are not properly applied. That is a very important way of strengthening the protection for the environment.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am most grateful for the welcome which has generally been given to the government amendments. I have noted the criticisms that have also been advanced, and am happy to note that they are very few. Many of them have been answered in previous debates and so I shall not respond specifically. However, it is my understanding that archaeology includes industrial archaeology, and that "historic" covers engineering history. As I said earlier, I believe that the situation is covered. Nevertheless, it would be churlish of me to refuse the lifeline thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. In view of the wide scope of the amendments which we have already conceded, I shall consider whether there is any way in which we can take his arguments into account.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 87: Page 104, line 38, after second ("be") insert ("so prescribed or, as the case may be,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Consent required for overhead lines]:

[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]

Schedule 9 [Preservation of amenity and fisheries]:

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 en bloc.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Grantchester)

The noble Baroness cannot do so.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 89: Page 107, line 34, leave out from ("formulating") to end of line 36 and insert ("any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, if Amendment No. 90 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91.

Lord Howie of Troon had given in notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 90: Page 107, line 39, leave out from ("buildings") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("structures, sites or other objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness had moved the amendments en bloc. It seemed a very good idea at the time. However, I can see why she did not do so.

I greatly appreciate her reception of my comments. However, archaeology does not include industrial archaeology. I leave it at that. The noble Baroness said, as has been said to me before, that history would include the history of engineering. I must remind the House that the Bill includes architecture. History would include architecture. It is not proper to separate architecture from the history of architecture and yet assume that history includes the history of engineering. What is good enough for the architect ought to be good enough for the engineer. Having said that, I shall not move Amendment No. 90 or Amendment No. 93 when the time comes. However, I hope that the Government Front Bench will pay close attention to what I have said and come back at Third Reading with something that is mid-way between our two positions. I doubt whether it will be nearer my position than theirs, but I shall be content with something in between.

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.)

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:

Page 107, line 40, leave out ("or historic") and insert ("historic or archaeological").

Page 107, line 41, leave out ("take into account") and insert ("do what he reasonably can to mitigate").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 94:

Page 107, line 43, at end insert— ("(1A) In considering any relevant proposals for which his consent is required under section 38 or 39 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

1. (a) the desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above; and
2. (b) the extent to which the person by whom the proposals were formulated has complied with his duty under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 96 to 105:

Page 107, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 108 and insert ("means any proposals—

1. (a) for the construction or extension of a generating station of a capacity not less than 10 megawatts, or for the operation of such a station in a different manner;
2. (b) for the installation (whether above or below ground) of an electric line; or
3. (c) for the execution of any other works for or in connection with the transmission or supply of electricity.").

Page 108, line 10, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and paragraph 1A below extend").

Page 108, line 10, at end insert— ("1A.—(1) A licence holder shall within twelve months from the grant of his licence prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to perform his duty under paragraph 1(1) above, including in particular the consultation procedures which he intends to follow. (2) Before preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, a licence holder shall consult with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservency Council and—

1. (a) where the activities which he is authorised by his licence to carry on include activities in England, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; and
2. (b) where those activities include activities in Wales, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales.

(3) As soon as practicable after preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, the licence holder shall publish the statement as so prepared or so modifed in such manner as he considers appropriate.").

Page 108, line 12, leave out from ("formulating") to end of line 15 and insert ("any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity").

Page 108, line 19, leave out ("or historic") and insert ("historic or archaeological").

Page 108, line 19, at end insert ("and").

Page 108, line 20, leave out ("take into account") and insert ("do what he reasonably can to mitigate").

Page 108, line 22, leave out from ("objects") to ("shall") in line 23 and insert— ("(1A) In considering any relevant proposals for which his consent is required under section 38 or 39 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

1. (a) the desirability of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above; and
2. (b) the extent to which the person by whom the proposals were formulated has complied with his duty under paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph.

(1B) Without prejudice to sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) above, in exercising any relevant functions each of the following, namely, a licence holder, a person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity and the Secretary of State").

Page 108, line 33, leave out ("paragraph 3") and insert ("paragraphs 2A and 3").

Page 108, line 33, at end insert— ("2A.—(1) A licence holder shall within twelve months from the grant of his licence prepare, and from time to time modify, a statement setting out the manner in which he proposes to perform his duty under paragraph 2(1) above, including in particular the consultation procedures which he intends to follow. (2) Before preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, a licence holder shall consult with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland. (3) As soon as practicable after preparing or modifying a statement under this paragraph, the licence holder shall publish the statement as so prepared or so modified in such manner as he considers appropriate.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, I should have pointed out that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List concerning Amendment No. 105. "Nature Conservancy Commission" should read "Nature Conservancy Council".

Clause 41 [Standards of performance in individual cases]:

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 106: Page 32, line 17, leave out ("domestic premises") and insert ("tariff customers").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 108. In Committee we undertook to consider the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, to widen the application of the guaranteed standards scheme which the director will create under Clause 41 of the Bill.

It has always been the Government's intention that the new system of compensation for consumers when a public electricity supplier fails to meet guaranteed standards of service should apply to those customers who may not be able to benefit directly from the choice of supplier which larger business consumers may expect to enjoy after privatisation. We intend that those consumers who will be faced with a single monopoly supplier for the foreseeable future should have the additional protection of guaranteed standards of performance from their supplier.

The majority of consumers who fall into this category will of course be domestic consumers, and indeed the Government's primary aim has always been that it is primarily the householder who should benefit from the new rights. However, we have considerable sympathy with the view, expressed in many quarters, that there may be categories of customer who, although not qualifying as domestic customers, will nonetheless find themselves restricted for all practical purposes to a single supplier—for example, small business customers and farmers. The amendment before the House therefore provides that such categories of consumer may be included within the scope of the guaranteed standards scheme.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the amendment meets the concerns that they have expressed. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 107:

Page 32, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-section 1 above, in making regulations under this section the Director shall have regard to the following aspects of service quality:

1. (a) the maximum number, if any of unplanned or planned interruptions of electricity supply;
2. (b) the maximum duration of any interruptions permitted under (a) above;
3. (c) the minimum notice required for planned interruptions of supply;
4. (d) the maximum variation allowable in voltage and frequence of supply, including transient variations;
5. (e) the maximum time allowable for the connection of new customers to an existing supply; and
6. (f) the restoration of a supply to customers where the supply has been terminated in error.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, some aspects of the quality of electricity are covered in other parts of the Bill. This amendment adds a new subsection to Clause 41 which gives the director powers to define standards which would, if breached, automatically trigger the compensation that is already provided for in subsection (3) of Clause 41. That subsection allows compensation for failure to meet individual standards.

The new subsection defines those standards. They cover a number of things which are obvious in the amendment, for example, interruption of supply and minimum notice required for planned interruption of supply. Many noble Lords will know of examples of consumers who have perhaps gone away at Christmas and not received a notification that there will be an interruption of supply. Their pipes have been frozen, serious damage has occurred to their homes and they have not had any compensation as a result.

There are a number of other definitions here, including the maximum duration of interruption and the restoration of supply when termination has occurred by error or by accident. All of those things come within the power of the director. He may define them. This is a purely permissive amendment but, in giving him those powers, it also gives consumers the opportunity to obtain automatic compensation and redress in those circumstances.

In allowing the director to define the causes for compensation, it would greatly facilitate all methods of redress. The measure is long overdue. Under the present system consumers have suffered for many years from disconnections and other matters that are due to negligence, and they have not been compensated. They will benefit and the whole industry will benefit because it discourage negligence. It will make people more careful—dare I say it?—about their engineering as well as about other matters and will thus raise standards throughout. I hope that that will therefore commend it to my noble friend the Minister.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to the importance of Clause 41.

The making of regulations under this clause, prescribing guaranteed standards of service, will be a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. We do not feel that it would be right to restrict his discretion by setting out in advance precisely what he should or should not include in these regulations. The Bill already provides for a thorough consultation process in that the director will be required to consult the public electricity suppliers and persons and bodies representative of the consumer before making regulations under the clause. He will also need to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the regulations that he proposes to make.

My noble friend seeks to ensure that the regulations will cover a range of specific areas of service quality. I should first make it clear that many of those areas may indeed feature in the regulations that the director will eventually make. Naturally, the question of whether they should cover matters already dealt with by other provisions in the Bill, licences or the supply regulations, is one that the director will wish to consider. However, as I have made clear, the Government wish neither to restrict his decisions in advance, nor to pre-empt the consultation process to which I have alluded.

Nonetheless, I understand my noble friend's concern. It might therefore be helpful if I dealt with each of these in turn, so that she is not under the impression that the Government feel that they are unimportant.

With regard to the maximum number and maximum duration of unplanned or planned interruptions of electricity supply, I must say that I do not think that what is suggested would be suitable in the form it is drafted for individual standards of performance. This sounds rather more like an area that the director might wish to consider for the standards of overall performance to be set up under Clause 42. I must say, however, that I could foresee practical difficulties in forecasting unplanned interruptions which, by their very nature, must be difficult to plan for.

Turning to the notice required for planned interruptions of supply and the maximum variation allowable in voltage and frequency of supply, both those areas are covered by the electricity supply regulations. Breach of those regulations constitutes a criminal offence and the consumer is therefore well protected in that area.

Turning to the maximum time allowable for the connection of new customers to an existing supply, I must say that I think it would be difficult to make such a prescription, given the variations which will inevitably occur in individual circumstances.

In any case the Bill already provides a remedy in that area. Under Clause 18, a customer requiring a supply may specify the day on which the supply is to commence. If the supplier nominates an alternative date, which is not acceptable to the customer, then the matter can be referred to the director for the exercise of his powers to determine disputes under Clause 25. Any failure to meet the determined timescale would be a breach of the obligation under Clause 18 and, accordingly, a matter for the director's enforcement powers.

Finally, the restoration of a supply terminated in error is already covered by the more general obligation to provide a supply.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government take those areas of supply service seriously. As I have also indicated, the director will be free to deal with those or similar areas when making his regulations. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to list such areas in the Bill. I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend might feel able not to press her amendment.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a full and thoughtful answer for which I am extremely grateful. I shall study it carefully in relation to those parts of the Bill which he mentioned and which, obviously, one has not had time to study at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 108: Page 33. leave out lines 6 and 7.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 109: Page 33, line 19, leave out ("from time to time") and insert ("regularly").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are dealing here with the duties of a director to collect information. The expression in the Bill as drafted is "from time to time". That seems to us to be an expression which may extend to a period of weeks, months or years. A regular collection of information would be the right formula. This is not an amendment of great significance, but I believe that it is something to which the Government should pay attention. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's amendment serves his purpose because "regularly" could mean, for example, one a year and "from time to time" could mean four or five times in the course of a year, but at irregular intervals. I am not sure which way he would rather have it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the phrase "from time to time" could mean every five years.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for putting forward his amendment. Under Clause 43(2) the public electricity suppliers are required to provide the director with specific information once a year about the number of cases in which compensation has been made under Clause 41, the aggregate value of that compensation and such information as the director may require about the overall performance achieved in respect of each standard determined under Clause 42.

Your Lordships may be concerned that the director will not publish information on a regular basis.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, what is "regular"?

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, if the noble Lord will be patient for a moment I shall come to the all-important distinction between "regular" and "from time to time". I shall take my time about it.

I should draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 43(4) which provides that the director must arrange for the publication of the information at least once a year. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is the publication of the information, not its collection, which is important; it really makes no difference at all to customers whether the director collects the information "regularly" or "from time to time" provided that the information is published at least once a year.

9 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, obviously it does not make a great deal of difference. If the information is collected from time to time it could be wildly out of date when the director makes his regular report.

The Earl of Dundee

The director, my Lords, is required to publish the information at least once in every year, so that customers or potential customers will be aware of their suppliers' performance. In this way, the consumer will be provided with information, as never before, about his local electricity supplier and will know that there are pressures operating on him to improve his performance. And the supplier will seek to improve his performance in competition with the other suppliers.

Taking the difference between collection and publication, there is a duty to report to the director at least once a year. If there is that duty and there is also a duty imposed on the director to publish once a year, I do not think that it matters whether the collection is at a regular interval or from time to time. The relevant consideration is that the publication occurs. That publication cannot be neglected by the director and it has to occur at least once a year.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will look carefully at what has been said in this discussion. It seems to me odd that the director should from time to time collect information which he shall then publish regularly. He can from time to time collect information and by the time he regularly publishes it it may be wildly out of date.

Again, this is not a very important factor but perhaps the noble Earl will write to me about it. I shall enjoy reading whatever he does write.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I always look at everything that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says in a very regular way, not just from time to time.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. He has a very regular mind and not a mind that functions from time to time. I hope that in the context he will explain to me how this will operate. If the director is to report regularly, he has to collect information regularly; otherwise he will have out-of-date information on which he is reporting. However, in the light of the noble Earl's time to time response I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 110: Page 33, line 23, leave out ("overall").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 111. Again, this is a probing amendment. I am quite uncertain about the meaning of "overall" in this context. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, this clause and Clauses 41 and 42 need to be seen as a whole. Clause 43 provides for the director to collect and publish information about the compensation in respect of standards of performance in individual cases under Clause 41 and the levels of overall performance achieved under Clause 42.

The word "overall" as used in Clauses 42 and 43 simply distinguishes the Clause 41 standards from the Clause 42 standards. The former will relate to the service experienced by individual consumers. By contrast the Clause 42 standards will provide indicators of the supply companies' overall performance and might include, for example, the expectation that the supply companies would respond to 100 per cent. of certain types of written inquiry within a set number of days, or that 95 per cent. of certain types of supply failure should be dealt with within a set period of time.

This category of standard is complementary to, but distinct from, the guaranteed standards of service to be set by the director under Clause 41. It will be up to the director which aspects of customer service it is appropriate to deal with in each of the two schemes, and there is no reason why there should not be some areas which are dealt with under both schemes.

The guaranteed standard scheme and the standards of overall performance will deal with different aspects of the supply company's performance. I hope that in the light of that further explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, as always I am grateful to the noble Earl. However, I did not receive an answer to my question: what does 'overall" really mean? He said that there will be standards of overall performance. What are those standards? What are the standards to be set? I do not wish to pursue this argument but if the noble Earl could help me a little as to what "overall" means, I should be more than grateful.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I hope it is in order for me to intervene at this stage. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is on to a point which requires explanation. If it cannot be given today, I hope that perhaps it might be given at Third Reading.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me perhaps to be more precise in defining "overall". I think that the best way in which I can define it is to say that it does not mean individual.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I express my gratitude for the noble Earl's overall performance but I am no further on than I was when we started this debate. I hope that he will take up the suggestion of his noble friend Lord Renton and perhaps I may receive another letter from the noble Earl explaining what the Government mean by "overall". If we do not like it, perhaps we shall return to it at Third Reading.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, of course it is always important through the lengthy discussions that we are having on this long Bill to be absolutely sure that we are all informed in the way that we should like to be informed. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Earl about this matter.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]

Clause 44 [Functions with respect to competition]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 112: Page 34, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("jointly with the Director").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114.

We are dealing here with the function with regard to competition. The Director General of Fair Trading, as I understand it, has a role and the director in the terms of the Bill also has a role. The Fair Trading Act lays down the rules under which the Director General of Fair Trading operates. It would be detrimental to the concept of competition policy if there were to be any serious derogation of the rights of the Director General of Fair Trading simply because there is something written into a Bill that deals with a particular industry.

The Director General of Fair Trading has a writ which runs right across industry. The amendment I am moving and those to which I am speaking try to ensure that the role of the Director General of Fair Trading is properly respected in that he is, under the Fair Trading Act, the person who initiates action on anti-competitive issues.

I would hate it if the Government were to say "The Director General of Fair Trading can in some way not be involved", or in some way can be side-tracked in competition issues of this nature. It is for that reason that I beg to move the amendment.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, under Clause 44 the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Fair Trading will exercise powers concurrently—the point about which we have to talk is the meaning of concurrent and joint—in relation to electricity, and certain of the latter's functions under the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and the anticompetitive practice provisions of the Competition Act 1980. One director or the other will need to take the lead role depending on the nature of the case at issue. Broadly, the Government envisage that if the case turns primarily on the generation, transmission or supply of electricity the DGES would normally take the lead whereas the DGFT would do so if the case concerned more than that one industry or market.

The Bill cannot anticipate where the balance will lie in any particular case. That is why it provides for concurrent jurisdiction and for consultation between the two directors before either exercises that jurisdiction. The two directors will be able to decide the best practical approach in the light of these broad principles and the circumstances of the individual case.

Perhaps I can give examples which might help the noble Lord. The Director General of Electricity Supply would normally take the lead only where the case primarily concerned the performance of the electricity industry alone. If, for example, a licensee engaged in predatory pricing practices which distorted competition in some part of the electricity market, the director could take action under competition law if he felt that a more appropriate route in the circumstances than the licence enforcement and modification procedures. On the other hand, the DGFT might take the lead where the case concerned more than one, or a separate, industry or market. If, for example, a supplier engaged in anti-competitive pricing practices with regard to the sale of electric household appliances, that might be a case where the DGFT could be expected to take the lead role.

These are perhaps simple examples. It will not always be clear which director should take the lead. That is why this clause provides for consultation between the two directors before either exercises his power. The two directors will be able together to decide the best approach in the light of the broad principles which I have outlined.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that certainly the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the powers of the DGFT are in no way cut down by the provisions in this Bill.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes

My Lords, perhaps I may correct a mistaken impression given inadvertently by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. The Director General of Fair Trading has no power to do anything in relation to a public sector industry. It is only after the passage of this Bill that the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to intervene for the first time. He was able to intervene to a limited extent if references were made under the Competition Act. I should like to clarify that point.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for instructing me on the duties of the Director General of Fair Trading. The fact is that we are dealing with a Bill which is privatising companies and we are discussing what will happen post-privatisation. I made no assertions at all about what the director general can or cannot do under existing circumstances. He is governed by the 1973 Act which is complemented by the 1980 Act.

Turning to the amendment which the noble Lord and I were discussing, it seems odd that there should be a joint or concurrent responsibility and not merely a clear responsibility for the Director General of Fair Trading. As I understand it, and as the noble Lord has explained, the Bill arrogates to the director a right to exercise competition or to institute competition policies. In some way he is involved in what is properly the right of the Director General of Fair Trading.

I find that a curious construction. Perhaps the construction is sensible but I have yet to understand how that is so. As far as I know the provision does not appear in the British Telecom privatisation Act. It does not appear in the Gas Act, unless the noble Lord can point me to those sections in which the Director General of Fair Trading has a joint or concurrent responsibility with Ofgas. As far as I know it does not operate in British Steel. I am interested to note that it has suddenly appeared in this Bill. I shall be happier if the noble Lord can help.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say with respect that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to insert the word "jointly" in place of the word "concurrently" and that that is the issue which concerns him. Our understanding of the word "jointly" is that everything is done jointly—as Siamese twins, for instance—in respect of every single issue which arises. We believe that the word "concurrent" allows each to take the lead in the area in which he has responsibility. However, in no way does that infringe or impinge on the power of the Director General of Fair Trading in relation to the Act.

I do not believe that there is anything between us as regards what we are trying to achieve in the rights of the Director General of Fair Trading. However, we believe that in this context the word "concurrent" is much better than the word "jointly". We do not want any matter to fall down between the two; nor do we want them to do everything as though they were Siamese twins.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The expression "jointly" means that either side has a veto on what happens. That preserves the authority of the Director General of Fair Trading. Ultimately he will decide whether jointly such and such an action is to be taken. The word "concurrently" means that at a certain point in time things happen. Nevertheless, we have had an interesting debate. I am sure that the noble Lord will read what has been said, as will I. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]

Clause 45 [Fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity]:

[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]

Clause 48 [General functions]:

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 116: Page 37, line 5, leave out from ("activities") to second ("and") in line 6 and insert ("to which this subsection applies").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. Yesterday we discussed combined heat and power and touched upon the government Amendments Nos. 116 and 118. The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that, in carrying out his functions to keep under review the carrying on both in Great Britain and elsewhere of activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, the director should also keep under review in particular activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from, and air and water heated by, such heat. I understand that that is the correct description of the process known as CHP. I understand that these amendments are reasonably welcome.

I now turn to Amendment No. 119. In this respect, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the intention behind this amendment. However, there are two practical difficulties created by it.

First, it refers specifically to activities which have the effect of increasing the overall efficiency of power stations. But measures which increase the output of electricity from a given amount of fuel may not be compatible with increasing the overall efficiency with which fuel is burnt. The operation of CHP plant is a case in point. Some efficiency of electrical output has to be sacrificed in order for there to be a constant and marketable supply of heat. Thus, the efficiency of power generation may be lower; but of course the CHP plant has greatly increased the efficiency of fuel use. The amendment could therefore give rise to confusion on behalf of the director. It may, unintentionally, give CHP a lower priority than electricity generation pure and simple. I am sure this is not what is intended by the movers of the amendment.

Secondly, the director is already under a primary duty in Clause 4 to promote competition in the generation of electricity. In discharging that duty he will have to take account of the efficiency of different power stations and the different ways in which electricity can be produced. The more efficient stations will naturally be the more competitive. And those which make the best use overall of the way fuel is burnt—for example, through CHP—will be at a considerable competitive advantage.

I hope therefore that the House will accept that this amendment, though well intended, might set back rather than advance the cause of CHP. I beg to move Amendment No. 116.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am in some confusion about the amendments which we are discussing. The noble Baroness moved Amendment No. 116. She has also spoken to Amendment No. 118 and to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and myself, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 118. I ask for guidance from the noble Lord on the Woolsack. Are we discussing the whole lot together, are we to move Amendment No. 119, or how are we to treat this matter?

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi)

My Lords, the noble Baroness, as I understood her, was merely speaking to Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. What I was intending to do was having called Amendment No. 118, the noble Baroness having put it, I would then put the Question. Then I was going to immediately call Amendment No. 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, in that case, if the House agrees, we should speak to Amendment No. 119 as an amendment to Amendment No. 118 although the noble Baroness has only moved Amendment No. 116. She has anticipated the arguments which were to be put forward in support of Amendment No. 119. Am I correct in my assumption?

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, noble Lords are entitled to speak to any amendments they wish, but they are only allowed to move one at a time.

Lord Renton

My Lords, assuming that we are taking Amendments Nos. 116, 118 and 119 together for discussion, although they may have to be moved separately—and we know that they do—I wonder whether, without causing him any embarrassment and without trying myself to seem the least bit clever, I should invite the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to the fact that in Amendment No. 119 he refers to the: overall efficiency of power stations", having complained quite recently of the use by the Government two pages earlier of the expression "of overall performance", which, I must say, puzzled me a little.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. The amendment was drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose name appears at its head. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who alas is not in his place, and I simply supported the amendment without going into the complications of what "overall" might mean.

Lord Renton

My Lords, if we are to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it is important that we should know the implication of the use of the word "overall" in relation to the efficiency of power stations. Does it mean the efficiency of all power stations throughout the country, or of all power stations to which this clause refers? What is the difference between "efficiency" and "overall efficiency"?

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra I feel that I must elucidate. As I am not in the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in defining the word "overall". I can perhaps have a shot at it without offending anybody. Perhaps I shall also be able to help the Minister in answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is self-evident to anyone but a lawyer what is meant by "overall" in this respect. It means the efficiency of power stations in general and in particular. That is what the amendment is intended to convey.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out to him that referring to power stations in the plural inevitably means that we are not referring to particular power stations but to power stations in general.

Lord Peston

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I join this debate. I had better ensure that we are talking about Amendments Nos. 116, 118 and 119. I have no problem with Amendment No.116. I believe that Amendment No. 118 is intended to take us on with combined heat and power and is meant to be the Government's response to pleas in that direction. I hope that I am right in that assumption. The only minor matter between us concerns Amendment No. 119. My name is not attached to it, and I therefore have no responsibility for the wording.

I had assumed that this was an elucidatory amendment to point out that we wanted to interpret the contribution in terms of system efficiency. What matters is the explicit recognition by the Government of combined heat and power as being the relevant matter, a point made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which I strongly supported. If we ignore the precise wording of the amendment—I shall not add to the insults to lawyers—I believe that a clarification of this kind might be helpful. However, that is not the central issue. What is important is to welcome the Government's recognition of the contribution of this kind of technology in this area.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 117: Page 37, line 8, leave out from ("on") to end of line 11.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to look at this amendment I begin by saying that I am full of genuine sympathy for Professor Littlechild, who will doubtless be scanning this Bill night after night in order to understand clearly what his duties will be. Clause 48(1) states, It shall be the duty of the Director, so far as it appears to him practicable from time to time to do so—

1. (a) to keep under review the carrying on both in Great Britain and elsewhere of activities …
2. (b) to collect information with respect to those activities, and the persons by whom they are carried on"—

I daresay that so far those words will have been of use and guidance to Professor Littlechild. He will then continue, looking at these words, with a view to his becoming aware of, and ascertaining the circumstances relating to, matters with respect to which any of his functions under this Part are exercisable".

I wonder when your Lordships' House will reach the conclusion that somewhere, sometime and somehow, there must be a limit to the amount of rubbish that is allowed to creep on to the statute book with the authority of your Lordships. After the minor exhilaration and shock that I experienced last night when the Government accepted one of my amendments, I do not entirely despair that they might even see fit, in their own interests and not to gratify any passing whim of mine, to omit these meaningless and useless words.

On the other hand, if one of my noble friends is able to rise to her or to his feet, whichever may be appropriate, and say that these words have proved to be of immense value to Professor Littlechild in facing his onerous duties, then I shall happily withdraw the amendment and apologise for having moved it. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, whether my noble friend withdraws the amendment or not, I hope that he will not apologise for having moved it. I believe he has done a valuable service in doing so and I support him. When we enact laws we assume that they are laws that have to be obeyed and that can be enforced. I do not know how we can ever be sure. I did not know of this gentleman's name until my noble friend mentioned it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, it has emerged very quietly and in a very low-profile fashion during the currency of these debates that Professor Littlechild—poor man‡—is to be the individual saddled with the fate of being the Director General of Electricity Supply.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend because he has mentioned something that has escaped me. I wonder how we can be sure that he has made himself aware of the matters that are contained in the words that my noble friend wishes to have omitted. How can those words possibly be enforced? They are not fit for law-making and, that being so, as he said, they should be taken out.

Lord Peston

My Lords, again I rise with slight trepidation in support of this amendment. If the Government do not accept it I hope that this is an occasion when a little exercise through the Division Lobbies might be appropriate. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Ending the relevant sentence at the point where the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, wishes it to be ended is to raise the question: for what other reason would the director wish to collect this information? In other words, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is entirely right. The sentence can stop exactly where he wants it to, because that is obviously—I underline the word "obviously"—where the sentence should stop. I make that point of agreement with him and hope very much that the Government will see the point of what he has said.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Peyton. I have listened carefully to the arguments. I do not wish to delay the House. I will agree to take this hack without commitment and reconsider the matter.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, this is the second shock. I very much doubt whether I have the constitution required to take these shocks, but I shall do my best and face them with such courage and resources as I can muster.

I am grateful to my noble friend, and I hope that at Third Reading he will come up with a clear determintion to delete this horrible—I will not use the noun that occurred to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 118: Page 37, line 11, at end insert ("and this subsection applies to any activities connected with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, including in particular activities connected with the supply to any premises of heat produced in association with electricity and steam produced from and air and water heated by such heat.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, as an amendment to Amendment No. 118 I now call Amendment No. 119.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, the amendment is not moved.

[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 118 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Annual and other reports]:

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 120: Page 38, line 39, leave out ("and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 120 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 121 and 124.

During the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an amendment on behalf of the National Consumer Council urging the Government to accept that consumers of monopoly utilities, especially electricity, need national representation as well as the very welcome local representation which the Bill provides for in the regional consumer committees. That amendment did not entirely find favour with my noble friend the Minister.

These amendments have the same objective but in a somewhat altered form. The effect of the amendments is to create in addition to the regional consumer committees a national consumers consultative committee known as the NCCC, with a remit to keep under review matters affecting the interests of electricity consumers generally, including the important issue of prices. It would also facilitiate the exchange of information relating to such matters between the director and the regional consumer committees. It would be chaired by the director and would consist of the chairmen of each of the RCCs, who would become members of the NCCC by virtue of their appointment as chairmen of the RCCs.

This is a formal structure which would be created for the discussion and exchange of information relating to national policy for electricity consumers. This is crucial to the director's ability to carry out his role successfully. Comparisons could he made between the different performances of the regional committees in relation to consumers and, indeed, between the performances of the regional companies themselves. Some are bound to be more successful than others, just as some of the regional companies are bound to be better than others. I hope that at the regular meetings the chairmen would compete with one another in bringing there stories of their own successes.

We believe that this information, discussed and analysed at national level, will be vital to the director when he sets national policy and when he negotiates with the local companies. It will enable him to discern which is the highest common denominator and not the lowest that is acceptable in terms of national policy. At the same time, he will have collated invaluable information to use when negotiating important issues such as prices and considering incidences of bad practice and poor performance.

As things are, without these amendments the terms of reference for each of the regional committees are drawn up exclusively to deal with the supply of electricity in its own geographical area. There is no provision for them to consider at national level issues which have to be resolved at that level by the director. These amendments remedy that omission.

The consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 to Clause 51, would ensure that the director had a duty in his annual report to report in the form of a general survey on the activities of the new NCCC, in addition of course to the general survey in which he must already include the activities of the regional committees.

I spoke at length in Committee about the need for such a body, about its role and about how the structure of consumer protection in the gas industry is so admirable. If the Government accept these amendments tonight, then the newly-privatised electricity industry will be off to a flying start with a good structure for consumer protection; indeed, possibly a better structure than in any of the other privatised industries—certainly a far better structure than that which exists at present.

I urge my noble friend the Minister to look kindly upon the comparative modesty of these amendments and to accept their great importance to electricity consumers. I beg to move

Lord Renton

My Lords, I think that my noble friend has raised a most important matter and made a very valuable suggestion. I do not remember there being a statutory central users' consultancy council for electricity, but there was a body which we in the department, when I was there, used to know as "the electric women". They were, I think, called the Women's National Electricity Council. They were really representatives of housewives using electricity.

Of course, what is proposed here is something different. However, it is useful to have a central body in order to compare the performance in each region, and so on. I do not know quite what answer my noble friends on the Front Bench will give, but I think that is is a good suggestion, one which deserves serious consideration.

Lord Peston

My Lords, in rising to speak to this amendment I am of course aware of the position in the consumer world of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Indeed, she has vast experience in this area, and I think, therefore, that noble Lords would do well to listen carefully to the advice which she is offering.

In a way, the two main amendments are not necessarily interlinked, although they are related to one another. Perhaps I may speak briefly on Amendment No. 121. It seems to me that such a general survey of consumer activities during the year would be intrinsically valuable, whatever else we may say. I strongly support the proposal, in particular because I believe that such surveys attract public attention; they raise the general profile of consumerism; and they are educative so far as concerns the public in such matters.

As regards the council itself, let me say briefly that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I think that this would again raise the standards of consumer representation in the industry. I always make the point, on this and on all other matters, that all industries exist for the consumers; that is why they operate, and that is what they are there for. Therefore, to have direct consumer input is at least one way of seeing that the consumer will get, to some degree, what he or she should have. Therefore I am totally with the noble Baroness on this proposal. She referred to the fact that this would be a kind of highest common factor, and I think that that is very good.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness—and I do not say this in a mean spirit—about the existing consumer council in the electricity industry; but this would be something of a far higher order of magnitude and is therefore to be welcomed from that point of view. Moreover, I think that the noble Baroness is almost certainly right when she says that if the Government will move in this direction then they will give a stronger consumer voice in this area than has occurred in any of the other privatisation issues. However, I shall certainly not at this time of night start another debate on privatisation. Nonetheless, if we are going down that road, what the noble Baroness offers is a proposal which the Government should take seriously. Either in this form or in a form brought forward by the Government, I assure the Minister that she would receive complete support from this side of your Lordships' House.

9.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made clear in Committee, we have given considerable thought to whether a new national body is needed in the privatised industry. As your Lordships will be aware, the Select Committee on Energy of another place recommended to the Government that there was no need for such a body. The Government accepted that view in their formal response to the committee's report. We felt that consumer interests would best be served by local consumer committees serving grass roots needs.

Nonetheless, we have always believed—here we agree with my noble friend Lady OppenheimBarnes—that national co-ordination of the activities of the new consumers' committees would be a vital part of the new arrangement. It is clearly important that the experience of the various committees at local level should be pooled and exchanged so that they can benefit from one another's experience and national lessons drawn where appropriate. To that end the Bill gives the Director General of Electricity Supply, who will have the ultimate statutory duty to protect consumers' interests, a duty under Clause 48 to make arrangements for the provision of information to consumers' committees and the facilitating of the exchange of information among them.

We feel that the amendments will supplement such provision by formalising arrangements for regular meetings at national level in the way described by my noble friend. Like noble Lords who support the amendment, we believe that that will be beneficial. I am happy therefore to accept that the amendments will achieve the national co-ordination of consumer representation in the privatised electricity supply industry which my noble friend has advocated. I accept the amendment.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes

My Lords, my emotion is not one of shock but of great gratitude to my noble friend the Minister for the generous way in which she has accepted the amendment. She has demonstrated in the best possible way her, and the Government's, commitment to ensuring that consumers are adequately protected after privatisation. I am sure that consumers will benefit and that they share my gratitude. I thank my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 38, line 42, at end insert ("; and ("(e) include a general survey of the activities during the year of the National Consumers' Consultative Committee.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Periodical and other reports]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 122: Page 39, line 33, after second ("time") insert ("but not less than once a year").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak with a growing sense of grievance. As we have been going through the Bill, noble Lords have occasionally found their amendments accepted by the Government. I am the only person left who has not had an amendment accepted. I find that most unacceptable, especially as I feel that I am doing as much work on the Bill as any other noble Lord.

This is a good, simple amendment: the Government might decide to humour me by accepting it. With regard to the mini-consumer committees, as opposed to what will now be the Oppenheim-Barnes grand committee, the amendment merely says that "from time to time" is somewhat weak and that they should meet not less than once a year. I cannot imagine that anyone would think that they should meet less than once a year. If the Government are inclined to put me into a better mood, this is an amendment they should accept. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, it would indeed be shocking if we did not try to humour the noble Lord, Lord Peston, after his appeal. The present wording of the Bill requires the consumers' committees to report to the director from time to time. We believe that it is important that the committees should be able to report to the director freely at any time, as it is likely that they will make several reports in every year, either on their activities or at the request of the director, or on a matter which they may wish to draw to the director's attention.

I therefore have some sympathy with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to ensure that the director receives a report from each committee on its activities at least once a year. I am therefore very happy to say that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment. But perhaps we may consider the precise wording and drafting so as to retain consistency with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill, in particular Clause 43(4).

If it is agreeable to the noble Lord, in terms of a pleasant surprise or shock which this may bring him, the Government will be willing to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading in order to achieve the noble Lord's aim.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. The fact that the Government will improve on the wording is even more pleasant for me to hear. Therefore, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes moved Amendment No. 124: After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

("National Consumers' Consultative Committee

.—(1) There shall be a committee, to be known as the National Consumers' Consultative Committee, of which the Director shall be chairman and the ordinary members shall be the persons who for the time being hold office as chairmen of consumers' committees.

(2) the committee shall meet at least four times a year and shall be under a duty—

1. (a) to keep under review matters affecting the interests of consumers of electricity generally; and
2. (b) to facilitate the exchange of information relating to such matters between the Director, the ordinary members and their respective consumers' committees.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 57 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 41, line 47, leave out ("or") and insert— ("(gg) For the purpose of facilitating the conduct of collective bargaining between appropriate representatives of employees and any particular business;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps with this amendment I may also speak to Amendment No. 126. This section of the Bill is headed "Miscellaneous", and Clause 57 is an interesting clause to do with the disclosure of information. I agree that it is a matter of some delicacy because, after all, we are discussing the plcs as they will be. There are always problems as to what information ought to be in the public domain and what ought not. Essentially the clause starts with the negative part of no information etc. Then it says that it does not apply to a variety of matters.

I, with my noble friends and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, have no disagreement with that. It is a question of whether or not there ought to be two further exemptions. Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to take them in reverse order.

The second one is important in the sense that this industry, in terms of its operations and all the levels of generation, transmission and supply, will and ought to be subject to public scrutiny. It would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs if, in connection with the operations of the industry and the awarding of licences, relevant information were limited. In other words, there are those who have every reason to possess information in order to scrutinise the industry and, for all the arguments we have heard about competition and the role of the director, general public scrutiny remains of importance. It seems to me, to say the least, that it would be a pity if there were any encouragement to limit the availability of information.

Looking at the clause, I myself am not at all clear that it is drafted as well as it might be to cover the meaning that I have in mind. I believe that I have explained what I have in mind here. I am not of the extremist school of thought which says that all information ought to be in the public domain, but I am of the school of thought that believes that information is one of the great protectors, not only of the national interest but of the private interests of consumers.

The other point I wish to raise is an important matter. It is curious that in discussing this Bill—we are now coming to the end of it—we have had very little debate on the employees of this industry. The Bill will affect them to a very large degree, but I accept that in another way the Bill is not about them. I suppose that is one of the reasons why we have said very little about them. Nevertheless, the employees are part of the industry and the industry will not operate without them. Despite certain comments I hear as I sit in your Lordships' House about the current state of collective bargaining in this country, I assume we shall still have an economy where collective bargaining is the characteristic method of determining wages and conditions in industry. We are obliged to do that by our commitments to the ILO, and we shall be further obliged to do that by all kinds of developments in the EC.

It would be a pity if information that would facilitate the conduct of collective bargaining were not available. By "facilitate", I do not mean producing strikes and bad industrial relations, but rather producing agreements and good industrial relations. It would be a pity if there were not a general propensity, obligation—perhaps "obligation" is going too far—or tendency to disclose information that would be conducive to collective bargaining. I commend both amendments to your Lordships and, perhaps more to the point, I commend to your Lordships the kind of thinking which lies behind the amendments. I appreciate it is a little late to say to the Government that we should have thought about some of these matters a little earlier, but I shall be interested to hear the Government's response on these two amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to ensure that associated with industrial relations or health and safety matters. In Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, sought assurances that Clause 57, as presently drafted, did not prevent the normal flows of information associated with industrial relations or health and safety matters. He received an assurance from my noble friend Lady Hooper that it did not.

The provisions in Clause 57 will ensure that commercially sensitive information which has to be given to the Secretary of State or the director by licensees or others under any provision in Part I of the Bill will not fall into the hands of a competitor, or otherwise be disclosed. This clause does not in any way restrict the normal flows of information connected with health and safety at work matters between employer and employee. I hope that the noble Lord will see that point.

The Secretary of State and the director both have a duty, under Clause 4(3)(d), to secure the establishment of health and safety machinery for employees in the industry. This duty has been translated into conditions contained in all the licences which place a duty on the licensee to act together with other licensees to consult with representatives of their employees for the purpose of establishing an appropriate machinery.

Here I come to the important point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We have always made it clear that the existing national machinery for negotiations between the unions and management would be carried over into the privatised industry. The Bill therefore provides that each of the new companies will become an individual party to any national negotiating machinery, and that each of the parties must give 12 months' notice of withdrawal to the other parties.

Aside from their duties to secure the establishment of health and safety machinery for employees in the industry which I have mentioned, neither the Secretary of State nor the director will play any part in the conduct of industrial relations in the privatised industry, whether it be collective bargaining or any other form of negotiating machinery. There are no provisions in the Bill for either the Secretary of State or the director to obtain such information. It would be entirely wrong for them to do so. These are matters which are purely for the successor companies and their workforces to arrange themselves.

I hope that with that explanation of what the Government have in mind the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, are put at rest.

10 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am most encouraged by his remarks in relation to health and safety. I am pleased to hear what he had to say.

I am slightly more fearful than he is about the general climate of industrial relations. On the whole, I have always been one of those who would prefer collective bargaining to go ahead and to persuade both sides of industry to sort matters out themselves. I am afraid that in our society, as we have learnt recently to our cost, that does not always work as well as we should like. That is why we have fall-back powers, either for Secretaries of State or other bodies.

I take what the noble Lord said. It seems to be a valid point of view even if it is one with which I disagree. I thank him for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]

Clause 58 [Directions restricting the use of certain information.]:

[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]

Clause 60 [Powers to make regulations.]

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 128: Page 44, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology to your Lordships for reminding the House, even at this late hour of the night, of the wording which it is on the brink of inserting on to the statute book. It would be a pity too if those ardent readers of the Official Report did not also have a chance of studying them. Clause 60(3) states: Regulations made under any provision of this Part may—

1. " (a) provide for anything falling to be determined under the regulations to be determined by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons as may be prescribed by the regulations;
2. "(b) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities".

I have three solemn and serious questions to ask whichever of my noble friends is going to reply. First, what does he want those words to mean? Secondly, what does he think they mean? Thirdly, what do they mean?

I venture this observation in conclusion. The answer to the third question will be very difficult for him but very easy for me, and indeed for the rest of your Lordships. We shall, all of us, I am sure have no difficulty in concluding that those words mean nothing. Gobbledygook is quite a polite and civil description of this kind of garbage. I hope very much that the Government will have second thoughts and not allow it to soil the pages of the statute book.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I should normally wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on an amendment of this kind. However, I must follow the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I have always assumed that paragraphs of this kind were written into the Bill as a kind of outdoor relief for the legal profession. Although to the rest of us this does not seem to mean anything and seems to be gobbledygook, I thought that that was how the legal profession earned its living. Given the pressures the profession is under from other quarters, one is loath to suggest anything that might lower their standard of living at this time. Therefore, although my natural inclination is to support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I believe that these clauses are included for a very definite, productive, almost Keynesian, purpose.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, both for the amendment that he moved and for the manner in which he moved it. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I have no inhibition in supporting him.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, we have come a long way since the last stage of the Bill because I seem to have obtained recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is some purpose in this subsection. I notice that his view differs from that of his noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel who at that time called the subsection "unconstitutional". I suppose that it could be said that consistency exists in that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, called the whole thing "monstrous" at the last stage while my noble friend Lord Peyton described the subsection as "just horrid".

The noble Lord has suggested that Clause 60(3) would not easily be understood. Clause 60 as a whole is there to support the other regulation-making powers in Part I of the Bill. It will be of great importance to those who draft the regulations in defining the limits of the powers and to those who wish to scrutinise the regulations who will know that they have been drafted within the powers. The clause may also be important to the courts should they ever be called upon to adjudicate on the lawfulness of any regulations made under Part I. The clause is a highly technical provision which will be of interest to lawyers and others concerned with the drafting and lawfulness of subordinate legislation. Whether or not it will be of direct interest to consumers is arguable. They will of course be interested in many of the regulations to be made under Part I; for example, those establishing the guaranteed standards scheme. We shall do our best to ensure that the regulations are clearly drafted in the awareness that those who scrutinise subordinate legislation will want before them provisions which are not obscure.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, am aware of the professional background of my noble friend and I have no doubt that legislation loomed large in his mind when he was at the Inner Temple. I have taken seriously his concerns about the drafting of Clause 60. I must therefore say to him that, if he will agree to withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake, without any commitment, to ask that the draftsman looks closely at the terms of the clause with a view to establishing whether any improvement can be effected. However, I must say to my noble friend that that improvement will not be in the substance of what we are trying to achieve; it will be purely in the drafting.

To pick up what my noble friend said, he appears to be getting at the fact that the word "different" is mentioned four times in one subsection and the words "determined" or "determination" in another subsection. I undertake that the draftsman may have to burn the midnight oil but I am sure that, if my noble friend's strong feelings are to be judged correctly, that might not be wasted.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I am almost drowning in gratification. But one good turn deserves another. Since my noble friend has taken such a gracious and generous view of this modest amendment, I shall not press him to answer the three questions that I asked; namely, what does he want those words to mean, what does he think they mean, and what do they mean? I must tell him that I shall enjoy asking those questions should that unfortunately be necessary at a later stage of the Bill when he tells us of the conclusions that he has reached. I hope very much that the outcome will be profitable and positive. On that basis I have great pleasure in asking permission to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:

[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.