Electricity Bill

HL Deb 15 June 1989 vol 508 cc1583-631

House again in Committee.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 175B: After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

("Provisions supplementary to section 34. .—(1) The Secretary of State may give a direction requiring any person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity to give to the Secretary of State, after consultation with specified persons, any information or advice which the Secretary of State may reasonably require for purposes connected with the exercise of his functions under section 34 above. (2) The Secretary of State may give a direction requiring any person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity to operate his transmission system, at any time when a direction under section 34(3) above is in force, either in a specified manner or with a view to achieving specified objectives. (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "specified" means specified by or under the Secretary of State's direction; and a person authorised by a licence to transmit electricity shall give effect to any direction given to him under subsection (2) above notwithstanding any other duty imposed on him by or under this Part. (4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes or fails to comply with a direction of the Secretary of State under section 34 above or this section shall be liable—

1. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
2. (b) on conviction on idictment, to a fine.

(5) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under this section except by or on behalf of the Secretary of State. (6) Paragraphs 1 to 4, 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 to the Energy Act 1976 (administration of Act and other matters) shall have effect as if—

1. (a) section 34 above were contained in that Act;
2. (b) the powers of paragraph 1 were exercisable for any purpose connected with securing compliance with a direction under that section;
3. (c) information obtained by virtue of that paragraph could lawfully be disclosed to any person by whom anything falls to be specified under such a direction; and
4. (d) the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(c) of that paragraph included power to direct that information and forecasts be furnished to any such person.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 [Consent required for construction etc.of generating stations]:

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 176: Page 29, line 22, leave out from ("megawatts") to ("and") in line 23.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 177 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 178: Page 29, line 28, at end insert— ("(2A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that subsection (2) above shall have effect as if for the permitted capacity mentioned in paragraph (a) there were substituted such other capacity as may be specified in the order.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 180: Page 29, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: We are now in Clause 35 which deals with consents required in the construction of generating stations. In general the clause does not disturb us too much, but there is the usual nasty subsection (3) which allows the Secretary of State to direct, at his own discretion, that the general provision for authorisation by the Secretary of State shall not apply to whatever he feels that it should not apply to. It is, again, a rather odd insertion into the Bill as drafted, because if we are to have subsection (3) in Clause 35, why do we have Clause 35 at all? Why not merely have a clause saying that the Secretary of State can authorise whatever he likes, whenever he likes, on whatever terms he likes?

If we are to pass legislation in Committee and in this place, we must have some assurance from the Government, who are promoting the legislation, that the powers proposed in subsection (3) are to be used in some manner that we can understand. They should not be blanket powers.

Members of the Committee will be aware that on many previous occasions on other Bills I have complained that the Government are arrogating to themselves powers on a number of matters without further reference to Parliament, simply enabling provisions which allow the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes. So in moving my amendment I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, who will reply, will tell us exactly how this will operate. I beg to move.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I should perhaps explain to the noble Lord at the outset that any type of power station development exempted from the need for the Secretary of State's consent by regulations made under this subsection will still be subject to all the requirements of the planning Acts. The subsection which the amendment seeks to delete will merely give a flexibility which the Government consider to be necessary. Developments will take place at an operational power station in connection with generation which it may be more appropriate to deal with under normal planning procedures instead of under this clause.

One example of the sort of operational change the Government have in mind is a change in the arrangements for depositing ash from a coal-fired power station. Depositing ash is an integral part of the generation process at such a station and will be covered by this clause. However, where this is an entirely separate development from any other development at the power station, I believe that Members of the Committee would accept that it may be both more appropriate, and simpler to deal with it under normal planning procedures. The power to exempt such a development will enable that to happen.

I fully understand what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying about government legislation; it is not the first time I have heard him say it. But I hope that in the light of this explanation—and I could give him other examples if he wished me to do so—he will understand why this subsection is included in the clause.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I understand that there may be certain applications for the construction of generating stations which should be dealt with otherwise than within the ambit of the clause. In that case, why does not the noble Lord say so? What he has said has no validity whatsoever in the courts. What the courts will do is to interpret what Parliament meant when it passed this statute.

The noble Lord and I have had a nice conversation about what the legislation is meant to mean. With great respect, I understand the point which the noble Lord is trying to make, but it has no validity because ministerial statements in this House or in another place have no validity in the courts. What might happen is that the Secretary of State might go widely beyond what the noble Lord has said. Future Secretaries of State, we know not who, are not bound by what the noble Lord has said today. I wonder whether the drafting could be made rather tighter and reflect in rather more specific terms the position of the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has expounded to us.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

In answer to the noble Lord, of course I am prepared to look at the drafting. The fact remains that subsection (3) of the clause must stand. However, if the drafting can be tightened to give expression to the kind of example I have given, I shall certainly examine it. I cannot give any commitment on it.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that he understands the point I am making; as he rightly says it is a point which I have made on many occasions. If Parliament is to make a statute then that statute must be clear. Parliament and people outside must understand what it all means and what are the criteria by which the statute will be judged and which will apply in the courts.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for looking at it again, I understand that it is something which governments write into statutes more or less on an ad hoc basis. If the noble Lord is prepared, as he said, to look at it again, I am grateful. If, in looking at it again, he decides that he will not change it or come forward with any modification of the clause, I should also be grateful if perhaps he would write to me before the Report stage so that I can decide whether I wish to pursue the argument on Report.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I can give that assurance.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 180A and 180B not moved.]

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Consents under sections 35 and 36]:

[Amendments Nos. 180C to 180F not moved.]

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 181: Page 102, line 16, leave out ("Regulations under this paragraph may") and insert ("The Secretary of State may by regulations")

The noble Earl said: The amendment simply seeks to clarify the drafting of subparagraph (3) of paragraph 1 of Schecule 8. As Members of the Committee will know, Schedule 8 relates to consents granted by the Secretary of State under Clause 35 (consents required for the construction etc of generating stations) and Clause 36 (consents required for overhead lines). The amendment makes clear that it is the Secretary of State who may make regulations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 8. The Bill as drafted does not make this clear, hence the amendment before the Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am a little unclear about why the amendment is necessary, in spite of the noble Earl's explanation. It seems that the only person who can make regulations under the paragraphs is the Secretary of State. That seems to be self-evident. Can anybody else under the Bill as drafted make regulations?

The Earl of Dundee

Yes, the director can.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Earl says that the director can make regulations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 8, rather than the Secretary of State.

The Earl of Dundee

No, not quite. I am not implying that it would be a good idea that the director should do so. But, when the noble Lord asks or implies that there is no ambiguity, I suggest that the amendment is in the interests of clarity. That is why we specify here that it should be the Secretary of State, since elsewhere in the Bill, as we all know, we very often argue, or we have to decide whether it is more fitting for the responsibilities to be more those of the Secretary of State or the director.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. It seems to me that there is no ambiguity at all. However, if the Government feel that there is ambiguity, then so be it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments No. 181A and 181B not moved.]

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 [Consent required for overhead lines]:

[Amendments Nos. 181C, 182 and 182ZA not moved.]

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester)

I must state that, if Amendment No. 182ZB is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 182A to 187A.

Schedule 9 [Preservation of amenity and fisheries]:

Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 182ZB: Page 106, line 9, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert—

("Conservation and amenity: England and Wales 1.—(1) In formulating or considering any relevant proposals, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State, shall have duties to—

1. (a) further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there;
2. (b) further the protection of buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest; and
3. (c) promote energy conservation.

(2) In seeking to achieve the duties in 1(1) above those named shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features buildings or objects, as described in (1)(a) and (b) above. (3) In this paragraph "relevant proposals"—

1. (a) in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, means any proposals programme or series of proposals;

(i) for the construction, extension, or operation of a generating station; (ii) for the installation (whether above or below ground) of an electric line; or (iii) for the execution of any other works for or in connection with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity;

1. (b) in relation to the Director, means any proposals, programme or series of proposals which arise as a result of his general duties to promote the generation and supply of electricity;
2. (c) in relation to the Secretary of State, means any proposals for which his consent is required under section 35 or 36 of this Act.

(4) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.

Code of Environmental Conservation Practice: England and Wales

2.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of environmental conservation practice issued (whether by the Secretary of State or another person), and referred to in licences authorising the generation or supply of electricity, for the purpose of—

1. (a) giving guidance to any licence holder, and any person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph 1 above have effect; and
2. (b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices, by such licence holders and other person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity, with respect to these matters, including consultation on relevant proposals (as defined in paragraph 1(3) above and further defined in the code) with the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales, and may at any time by such an order approve a modification of such a code or withdraw his approval of such a code or modification of such a code or modification.

(2) A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining how he and the Director should exercise their powers according to the provisions of this Act in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless he has first consulted the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, the Historic Buildings Council for Wales and such licence holders, other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity and other persons as he considers it appropriate to consult. (4) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.

Conservation, amenity and fisheries: Scotland

3.—(1) In formulating or considering any relevant proposals or in relation to the duty imposed by paragraph (e) below, in exercising any relevant functions, each of the following, namely, any licence holder, any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity, the Director and the Secretary of State, shall have duties to:

1. (a) further the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside (including its flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features) and of any features of archaeological interest there;
2. (b) further the protection of buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest; and
3. (c) promote energy conservation;
4. (d) further the use by members of the public, for the purposes of any form of recreation, of any waterway or land used for purposes related to the generation or supply of electricity, by the provision, where appropriate, of facilities for any such form of recreation; and
5. (e) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, shall avoid, as far as possible, causing injury to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters.

(2) In seeking to achieve the duties in 1 (1) above those named shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects, as described in (1)(a) and (b) above. (3) In this paragraph "relevant proposals" has the same meaning as in paragraph 1(3) above and for the purposes of this paragraph, any such order as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) or that paragraph may be made under this sub-paragraph; "relevant functions" means any powers conferred and any duties imposed by or under this Act. (4) This paragraph and paragraphs 4 and 5 below extend to Scotland only.

Code of Environmental Conservation Practice: Scotland 4.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument approve any code of environmental conservation practice issued (whether by the Secretary of State or another person), and referred to in licences authorising the generation or supply of electricity, for the purpose of:

1. (a) giving guidance to any licence holder, and any person authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity with respect to any of the matters referred to in paragraph 3 above have effect; and
2. (b) promoting what appear to him to be desirable practices, by such licence holders and other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity, with respect to these matters, including consultation on relevant proposals (as defined in paragraph 1(3) above and further defined in the code) with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, and the Fisheries Committee as defined in paragraph 5 below) and may at any time by such an order approve a modification of such a code or withdraw his approval of such a code or modification of such a code or modification.

(2) A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State shall take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining how he and the Director should exercise their powers according to the provisions of this Act in relation to any licence holder or any person authorised by an exemption to generate or supply electricity. (3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this paragraph unless he has first consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Fisheries Committee as defined in paragraph 5 below and such licence holders, other persons authorised by exemption to generate or supply electricity and others persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment stems directly from the debate that we had on amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton on 16th May on electricity and the environment. On that occasion, while objecting to the amendment that we were then discussing, my noble friend the Minister took the opportunity to announce a number of measures designed to improve environmental protection in this Bill and in the wider consultative procedures for electricity installations. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in welcoming these proposals, and I look forward to seeing some of them as amendments to the Bill on Report.

I am sure that the Minister recognises that these proposals do not address the issues of principle that my noble friend Lord Renton and I raised on that occasion. I argued then, and I argue now, that it is in the interest of the industry itself, as well as of the public at large, to have a stricter and more effective environmental framework within which to plan and conduct its operations. I therefore believe that the Bill is still inadequate in its treatment of environmental issues. The purpose of my amendment today is to explore the Government's thinking on how this situation can be improved.

I must apologise for what is a very long amendment. It is a new version of Schedule 9, and it seemed to be the easiest way of ensuring that the various points I wished to address could be properly integrated. If the Government consider they have better suggestions, I shall be only too pleased to discuss them. This amendment has the support of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and English Heritage.

The amendment has four aims. First, it replaces the duty to have regard to the environment with a duty to further conservation. That, in my view, is vital. However, pioneering the words "have regard to the environment" were in 1957, they are not adequate for the late 1980s. I am afraid there has been too strong a tendency to ignore them. The words "having regard to" do not force the industry to do anything at all. The environmental issues which we must now deal with, and which we understand so much better than we did in 1957, cannot be disregarded. They are too serious to be disregarded.

I appreciate that the Minister may feel that the words "to further conservation" may not be as appropriate for this industry as they are for, say, the water industry, where they already apply. I accept that it is extremely difficult to landscape a power station away completely; it will always stick out like a sore thumb. However, I believe the words "to further conservation" convey the need for the environment to be given considerably more weight than is done now when proposals are being formulated and considered. I remain convinced that these words, or something very similar, must be inserted into the Bill.

I shall give the Committee an example of how a stronger environmental duty would bring benefits. The undergrounding of low voltage lines in sensitive landscapes has been referred to more than once in debates in the Chamber. In 1987 to 1988, 10.38 billion pounds worth of electricity was sold. That generated a profit of £155 million. I am told that was not an especially good year. One quarter of 1 per cent. of sales—that is to say, £25 million—would be enough to underground 500 miles of low voltage lines each year. Yet this is not happening, except on a very small scale with boards like Yorkshire. It is evident to me that we need a stronger environmental duty than we have now to encourage the power supply companies to embark on a programme of this kind. After all, the power supply companies are well aware that the cost of good environmental practice such as undergrounding is tax allowable. That is a very practical incentive.

The second aim of the amendment includes a duty to promote energy conservation on the part of the Secretary of State, the director, all licence holders and the public supply companies. This duty already exists, in a form, in Clause 3(3) of the Bill. However, in my view, it is vital that energy conservation is seen as an integral part of the environmental duties which the Bill introduces. There are many opportunities for making progress in this field— examples include the introduction of energy efficient light bulbs, fridges, freezers, television sets, washing machines and home insulation—if only we can encourage consumers to take them.

Energy conservation is the single most beneficial means of reducing environmental impacts. I feel that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough in emphasising its importance. This part of my amendment, while wholly consistent with the rest of the Bill, would make that emphasis. It would ensure that energy conservation occupies the priority it deserves within the industry's environmental obligations in future.

The third aim of the amendment extends the scope of Schedule 9 by applying it to proposals, programmes or series of proposals rather than simply to individual proposals as they come forward. If we look at the 1957 duty, we see that it applied to the CEGB's general programme, as well as to individual proposals, providing the Secretary of State with an opportunity to influence the programme as a whole on environmental grounds. Because of the different structure of the industry now being proposed, that is no longer possible. I readily accept that the wording of the amendment may not be perfect, but its purpose is to try to reinstate the opportunity for this overall view. Such a duty would probably sit more happily in Clause 3 of the Bill. However, this amendment compensates for the omission of any reference to the environment in Clause 3.

The fourth aim of the amendment is to provide a statutory code of practice for the electricity supply industry. I have seen and studied the voluntary code which was published on 16th May by the three successor companies to the CEGB. I warmly welcome that. As that voluntary code has been produced, why should we not go one stage further and insert a code of practice, ideally one that is approved and enforceable by the Secretary of State, in the Bill itself? Codes of practice are not uncommon: for instance they exist in the water industry. Inserting one in this Bill would reassure those who wonder whether the longer term successors to the CEGB will adopt such a positive attitude as the managers of the three new companies. A code would also ensure that good practice on the ground and in running and operating electricity installations can be positively promoted.

My amendment also picks up a point of detail in relation to Scotland, which appears to be an unfortunate casualty of the proposed legislation. Currently, there is a duty to provide public access to land and water associated with electricity generation under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. This is proposed for repeal without a reinstating clause in Schedule 9. I hope that can be rectified as it appears to me simply to be an anomaly.

I hope the Committee, and the Minister, will view this amendment sympathetically. I want to listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say before considering whether I shall have to return to the issue on Report. Therefore, I hope for a positive reply from the Minister. In closing, I wish to emphasise the key points. I agree with the Minister that there is a wide range of environmental legislation which has an impact on the electricity industry. However, in my view, this is still not sufficient to deliver the benefits that we seek. We have a duty, having signed the European Commission's fourth action programme on the environment in 1987, to promote the integration of the environment into all areas of policy, specifically including energy policy.

Finally, it is not sufficient to expect to achieve integration by a duty to have regard to the environment. We need a stronger statement of our commitment to the environment adequately to equip the industry for the late 20th century. The interest of the Prime Minister in the environment, especially on issues directly related to electricity generation and supply, has attracted attention throughout the world. I welcome that. However, the Government will have a difficult public relations problem if they cannot deliver in their own domestic legislation tangible evidence that they have taken the challenge of dealing with this problem seriously. I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for moving this long amendment. I have only two points to make. The first is to declare again my interest as president of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. I am sorry that the noble Lord left out the fact that the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales also supported the amendment, alongside its sister body, the Council for the Protection of Rural England.

The second point is perhaps a more serious one. In his introduction the noble Lord did not seem to emphasise sufficiently the fact that the 1957 Electricity Act took a strategic view of the environment which in this Bill seems to us to be lost. I hope very much that the Government will look sympathetically at that point. I cannot speak for Scotland; I can only speak for Wales and possibly, with permission, for England.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I understand the purpose of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Norrie has moved. The bodies which he has named, and at least one other which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has named, and perhaps others which have not been in touch with me, have expressed their great concern as to whether the terms of the Bill do enough to protect the environment in future. This is not a question of whether one is for or against privatisation, the main purpose of the Bill; it is simply a question of whether in changing the legislation one is doing enough to protect the environment or whether more is needed.

It struck me when the Bill was first published that it did not contain the kind of code of practice which appears in the Water Bill. The Water Bill is concerned only with privatisation in England and Wales. I say that as a Scot. It does not affect the water industry in Scotland, but it has a code of practice. The amendment seeks to bring in codes of practice, as described by my noble friend Lord Norrie. As my noble friend said, it looks as though Scottish legislation has been weakened and something which in the past has helped to protect the environment in Scotland where the electricity industry is concerned, has not been fully reinforced in the Bill.

I hope that whichever of my noble friends on the Front Bench replies will be able to give an assurance. I can vouch for the fact that the interested bodies are very much concerned. They must have been in touch with the Government; they have been in touch with some of us about the matter. Unless there is an assurance that the Bill in its present form will do as much, and perhaps more that may be needed in the future, to protect the environment some of us will be very worried about its terms.

Baroness Hooper

I do not wish to pre-empt further discussion on this important amendment but I think that it may be helpful to the Committee if I speak at this stage.

As my noble friend said in introducing the amendment, we have already had substantial discussions on this issue. In the second discussion I indicated concessions and amendments to be made by the Government, and those have been generally welcomed. In the previous debate I also endeavoured to draw a distinction between the water industry and the electricity supply industry in order to show that the main environmental effect of electricity generation relates to the pollution of our atmosphere. In that context we have the 15 Acts of Parliament and the 14 European Community directives to which I referred. Indeed, we are led to understand that a "green" Bill is in the pipeline for the next Session which will also affect the electricity supply industry.

Unlike water, which is all around us, electricity does not occur naturally in a readily usable form. It has to be generated and then transmitted around the country on a continuous basis to those who need it. This task falls to the electricity supply industry which has to construct and maintain the necessary power stations and transmission lines.

It is difficult in that context to reconcile the construction and operation of industrial sites like power stations—which are necessary additions to the environment—with the suggestion in the amendment of my noble friend that there should be a duty to further the conservation of natural beauty. Any industrial installation is likely to intrude on the environment to a lesser or greater degree. Nevertheless, the electricity industry does its best to landscape or screen its installations where possible. The CEGB has also established nature trails, field centres and facilities for bird watching at those sites where suitable opportunities exist and where there are no safety considerations. However, I recognise that there may be ways in which we can ensure the continuation of those good practices.

So far as concerns the wording of Schedule 9 to the Bill, my noble friend Lord Norrie said that there was ample evidence that the present words "have regard to the environment" did not carry weight and authority. I question that. As I said previously, we are not starting from the position that the electricity industry has neglected the environment. The CEGB has taken worthwhile steps to minimise the impact of power stations on the environment and to create offsetting benefits. Area boards have also played their part by lessening the visual impact of electricity lines in areas where that has been particularly important. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the present amenity provision in the 1957 Electricity Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has rightly said was strategic, has been disregarded.

In addition, in their joint statement of environmental policy, National Power, Power Gen and the National Grid Company all recognise the need to provide a safe and secure electricity supply while minimising the adverse effects of this obligation. To that end the companies have said that they will take the steps which were enumerated. Those intentions reveal a considerable sympathy with the environment. Again, I recognise the anxiety that those voluntary statements may not be kept up to date in some way. However, the statement in itself is important and reassuring.

The inclusion in the Electricity Bill of the amenity obligation in Schedule 9 has to be seen against that background. The obligation is something to which neither British Gas nor British Coal (the Opencast Executive apart) nor private sector industries such as the chemical industry are subject, even though their operations can have substantial effects on the environment.

However, I shall be prepared to consider further the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Norrie, and the other amendments to Schedule 9 put down by other noble Lords. In saying that, it is incumbent on me to make clear that I do not expect to be able to meet all the amendments which have been canvassed. Nevertheless, I shall consider them all carefully and I believe that we can meet some of the important concerns. We shall certainly continue our discussions with interested groups and individuals.

Before leaving this subject I should like to address in particular the subject of energy conservation. Clause 3 of the Bill, as has been said, already places a duty on the Secretary of State and the director to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons licensed to supply electricity. It also places a duty on them to promote the efficient use of the electricity supplied. In addition, private electricity suppliers will be required by their licence to provide guidance to their customers on the efficient use of electricity and to revise that information as necessary. Those requirements will make a valuable contribution to the dissemination of energy efficiency advice for the benefit of both consumers and, ultimately, the nation. However, again on this subject, we are still in the process of considering further the amendment moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this House.

We recognise that the challenge here is to shape legislation that will both regulate sensibly and assist industry to prosper. With the assurance that I shall look at the matter again carefully and hope to meet some of the concerns expressed in those amendments, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness. However, before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps she could be a little more precise about which areas she is prepared to look at and accept and which areas she is not prepared to look at and accept. It is a curious arrangement where a government Minister—I understand the problem—says that there may be some points that the Government can accept and other points that the Government will not accept and must look at. After all, we are in Committee and have only Report stage and Third Reading to come. The Bill is in its final stages of going through Parliament.

I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would clarify those points, at least for my purposes. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, does not wish any clarification. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could help us by telling us on which areas the Government are flexible and on which areas they are not flexible. We assume from what she has said that Schedule 9 will be redrafted along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and that some of my amendments to Schedule 9 which come afterwards will be taken into account sympathetically. If that is the case, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will be happy. If it is not the case, I think that we should know.

Baroness Faithfull

Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify one point for me. In supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie—as I do very fully—my noble friend said that she was quite sure that the electricity industry would take note of all that was said. But people change; governments change; the electricity board changes. Therefore, unless there is something more specific along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie, such as a code of practice or a provision in the Bill, I am not quite sure how my noble friend can give us the assurance that she has given us. I should be grateful for some help. I shall not elaborate any further as my noble friend Lord Norrie has spoken so extremely fully and well that there is no need to add anything further. But I should be grateful for some help from my noble friend the Minister.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

I wish to refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. As the Minister has mentioned, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, includes a reference to promoting energy conservation. Surely the Committee is entitled to know the Government's attitude to Amendment No. 62 which relates to energy conservation and was accepted by the House. The Government have simply said that they are considering the matter, but are we not entitled to know what the Government intend to do about it in order to decide what our attitude should be towards Lord Nome's amendment?

Lord Campbell of Croy

Before my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, I should say that I do not think that the Government need at this stage comment on an amendment passed a few days ago. Presumably, they are considering that now, so I do not expect them to comment. However, I should like to say briefly that it was with pleasure that I heard my noble friend say that she is prepared to consider all the points that are being made in the amendments to the schedule. No doubt the question of energy efficiency will already have started to be considered. It is not just as a matter of courtesy therefore that I thank my noble friend; I think that she has been absolutely right to say that she will go away and consider all those points.

Baroness Hooper

Taking the energy conservation point, perhaps I should say that, when the amendment was passed, it was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to be flawed and possibly to need some drafting alterations. It is in that context that discussions are going on, but obviously we are looking at it in the overall picture. This is an area where we must meet the arguments that have been put forward with a package of solutions. Indeed, we started the process with the package that was introduced previously. However, I thought that, in making my initial response, I had indicated the two areas where we had the possibility of negotiating.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the Minister. I just want to make the point (I do not intend any discourtesy) that we have a convention in this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, announced at the Report stage of the Companies Bill—that an amendment which has been decided in Committee is not overturned on Report. I am sure that that is a useful convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said. I hope that, in quite rightly considering the decision of the Committee on energy efficiency, the Government are not seeking to go back on that decision at the Report stage in this House.

Baroness Hooper

No, we are endeavouring to make the decision effective which, because of the flaw to which I referred, it is not at the moment.

I believe that I indicated two areas where we felt that we could ensure that we could do something to mitigate the effects. While we cannot claim to further the enhancement and conservation of the natural beauty of the environment in the process of electricity generation, perhaps we can be firmer in terms of mitigating the effects. I also indicated that we recognise the welcome that has been given to the voluntary codes of practice which have been produced by the various designated electricity supply companies, or shadow companies as they are now. But there may be some way in which we can ensure that it becomes a permanent requirement upon them.

I hesitate to venture north of the border, so perhaps I could ask my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden to respond to the queries raised in that respect.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I wish to respond briefly to the obvious interests north of the border expressed by my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Campbell of Croy.

I should like to say a few words about paragraph 3(1)(d) of the amendment which applies only to Scotland. The intention behind the paragraph is, as I understand it, to place a duty on hydro-electric generators to allow recreational access to their reservoirs and land. The bulk of Britain's hydro-power stations are located in the north of Scotland and no similar requirement has been suggested for the industry south of the border, where hydro-power represents only a tiny fraction of the overall generating capacity.

Many of the north board's hydro schemes are in the remotest areas of Scotland. Noble Lords will know that, unlike in England and Wales, where in populous areas use is made of water supply reservoirs for recreation, Scotland is fortunate in having large numbers or rivers, lochs and sea lochs which are more easily used for recreation purposes than the more remote lochs used for generating electricity. There is not the same call, therefore, on the hydro-board's facilities as there is on the water industry in England and Wales. Only a fraction of the populace reside near the schemes or have access to them. Often the water storage point is some distance away from the generating site. The flow and level of water stored for the generation of electricity can be subject to sudden and major change as sluice gates are opened and closed to meet peak electricity demands. The water can often be unsafe for recreational activities such as swimming, boating, windsurfing etc. It would not be reasonable to expect the hydro-board to abide by a duty to grant access to the water and at the same time ensure the safety of the public using facilities which may be some distance from the generating plant.

There are also difficulties over ownership. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy will know, the hydro-board does not own all the lochs used for the purposes of recreation; over many, they have only flooding rights. In addition, even where lochs are owned it is likely that the surrounding land will be in the ownership of other proprietors and access to the loch may be over their land. In these cases the successor company may have neither the power nor the authority to implement any guidance or practice set by the Secretary of State under the items referred to in paragraph 3 of the schedule because of the impact on other adjacent proprietors.

I understand the intention behind this part of the amendment but consider it to be unnecessary and undesirable in this form. The Scottish boards already do much to encourage recreational use of their facilities where this is feasible. The hydro board maintains visitors' centres and exhibitions at Cruachan and Pitlochry hydro-power stations which jointly attract almost 200,000 visitors a year. The board's annual angling contest has been running for over 15 years and involves angling clubs from all over the north of Scotland. Both Scottish boards, together with the CEGB and British Coal, are collaborating in a project to treat the waters of Loch Fleet in Galloway, South-West Scotland, which are known to have been devoid of fish life for over 25 years. The project is so far proving highly successful and fish stocks have been reintroduced into the loch. The south board is also contributing to the recreational activities in East Lothian by using coal ash deposits from its Cockenzie power station to reclaim and landscape land to allow scope for outdoor sports and recreation.

These examples provide evidence of the willingness of the electricity industry in Scotland to provide recreational access to their property where this is appropriate. But, as I have explained, in granting access the boards have to take account of public safety and the wishes of owners of adjacent land. This is not an easy matter. It is one upon which I think the Committee will wish to reflect before it considers whether it would be appropriate to place obligations on the Scottish companies in the way paragraph 3(1)(d) of the amendment seeks to do.

I noted very carefully what my noble friend Lord Norrie said about the repeal of certain sections of the Countryside Act. Powers to enable the Scottish boards to grant access to the public for recreational purposes currently exist in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. Since those apply to public boards, it would be inappropriate to continue them in their present form after privatisation. However, in view of the discussion tonight, I wish, like my noble friend Lady Hooper, to take note of what has been said and to consider the various actions that could be taken. With the commitment to look closely at this matter before Report stage, I hope that my noble friend feels that I have gone as far as I possibly can towards meeting his desire.

Lord Norrie

I am extremely grateful and pleased to hear what the Minister has said in response to my amendment. I trust that in agreeing to consider all the points which I raised, one can hope for some progress on all of them before the Report stage of the Bill. Certainly I shall be delighted to discuss any points of detail with the Minister in the meantime.

These debates on electricity and the environment have, I believe, focused attention on one of the most important issues arising from this Bill. I hope that when noble Lords come to look again at the matter there will be some amendments placed before the House which will provide the environment with the full and effective protection that it deserves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182A: Page 106, line 12, leave out ("the desirability of").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 182B, 182C, 182D, 182E, 184A, 185A, 185B and 187A. I shall not move these amendments formally because I understand from what the noble Baroness said that she is prepared to consider them. If that is so, perhaps she would be kind enough to indicate accordingly.

Baroness Hooper

Yes, indeed.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 182A not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 182B to 183A not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 184: Page 106, line 23, leave out from ("megawatts") to ("or") in line 24.

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 184A not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 185: Page 106, line 30, at end insert— ("(2A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect as if for the capacity mentioned in paragraph (a) there were substituted such other capacity as may be specified in the order.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 185A to 186 not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 187: Page 107, line 4, leave out ("(2)(a)(1)") and insert ("2A)").

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 187A not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 188: Page 107, line 123, leave out ("on fisheries in Scotland") and insert ("in Scotland—

1. (a) on fisheries, or
2. (b) on the stock of fish in any waters,").

The noble Lord said: During the Report stage of this Bill in the other place an amendment was tabled to extend the remit of the Fisheries Committee to include within its function of giving advice and assistance on questions relating to the effect on fisheries in Scotland of hydro-electric generating stations a reference also to the effect on fish farms. In reply (Official Report, Commons; col 633) my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Energy gave an undertaking to consider introducing a suitable amendment during the passage of the Bill through this Chamber.

During the intervening period we have taken the opportunity to consult the Scottish electricity boards, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Fisheries Committee itself. Having taken their views and received general support, we have decided to bring forward this amendment, which, although not worded exactly as that put forward in another place, gives effect to the intention behind the original amendment and, in fact, follows the wording used in Section 5(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 and paragraph 2(1)(c) of this schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Standards of performance in individual cases]:

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 188ZA: Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("may") to ("after") in line 37.

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 188ZB and 188A. With the permission of the Committee I should like to raise one general question that arises with regard to this and the following two or three amendments. In this section of the Bill the committee is discussing consumer protection. This clause has the heading "Standards of performance in individual cases". The next clause refers to "Standards of overall performance" and the following clause refers to "levels of performance", although within the clause there is reference to "levels of overall performance".

One of the clarifications that we should like concerns the difference between, as it were, performance in individual cases and what is meant by overall performance. I should like an explanation as to why in Clauses 38 and 39 the word "standards" is used while Clause 40 refers to "levels". I do not understand why the different words are being used. That is general background.

The specific amendment to which I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee is Amendment No. 188ZA, which leaves out from "may" to "after". In considering the question of levels of individual performance we query why we need the consent of the Secretary of State. If ever there was a job for the director, it would seem that this is an example. We do not understand the reference to the Secretary of State in this matter.

The third of these amendments is important. We ought to bear in mind that suppliers of electricity also supply other and related services. We are not quite clear whether the clause as drafted covers all the related matters that the suppliers of electricity undertake. In that case there is no problem. If it does not, our amendment appears appropriate.

I pause with regard to Amendment 188ZB, relating to page 30, line 37. My earlier amendment appears to delete that. Therefore if my first amendment is carried, my second no longer has any meaning. That has only just dawned on me. However, perhaps I may make the point. We know that the electricity suppliers are different people from the public electricity suppliers. It does not seem to us that there is any particular role for the public electricity suppliers. Those are the specific points to which the amendment is directed. If we can have some guidance from the noble Lord who will answer on the general question we shall be obliged. If that is regarded as a little broad-brush, we shall be happy to wait for a fuller answer on another occasion. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)

I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out his concerns. As we tackle a new group of clauses it may be helpful if I explain how the clauses fit together and the relevance of each of them. I hope to pick up the points that the noble Lord made.

We are looking at the new system of guaranteed standards of service which are to be introduced under Clause 38. That clause recognises that for the foreseeable future domestic consumers will continue to obtain their electricity supplies from a single local supplier. It is therefore one of the most important clauses in the Electricity Bill, as it will provide domestic customers with the right to compensation if their local electricity supply company does not meet certain standards of performance.

The Director General of Electricity Supply will be able to make regulations prescribing the standards of performance which he believes the public electricity suppliers should meet in the electricity supply services which they provide to their domestic customers. The regulations will also set the level of compensation which customers will receive if the companies fail to meet those standards. The regulations may also cover questions such as when the public electricity suppliers should inform their domestic customers of their rights and the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to penalise a supplier for events beyond his control; for example, freak weather conditions.

The public electricity supply licences will contain a condition requiring the supply companies to conduct their business in a manner best calculated to achieve the standards set by the director. Before making the regulations, the director will consult both the companies concerned and appropriate representatives of consumers' interests in order to ensure that the standards set and levels of compensation to be paid are realistic and fair.

The director will also be in a position, via the regional structure of the Office of Electricity Regulation, to assess the individual circumstances of the various supply companies and may, if he feels it appropriate, decide that the schemes should take account of regional variations—an important point. Of course, as the Bill makes clear, the director must in any case seek the approval of the Secretary of State before making his regulations.

The provision to pay compensation will not prejudice any other remedy which might be available to the consumer. The director will be able to determine disputes between suppliers and consumers over the payment of compensation or ask a consumers' committee or sub-committee to do so. An order made either by the director or one of the committees in determining such a dispute will be enforceable as though it had been made by a court. This all adds up to an important new package of rights to protect the position of the domestic consumer in the privatised industry. We believe that the scheme will prove to be a very strong incentive for the supply companies to achieve and maintain high standards of performance.

That is background that I hope the noble Lord accepts. I hope that it answers the first of the two main questions that he asked when he moved this amendment. On the first amendment of the noble Lord, subsection (1) as presently drafted requires the director to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before making the regulations that will establish the guaranteed standards of service and the levels of compensation to be paid to consumers for failure to meet the standards. The noble Lord seemed to indicate that this was more a matter for the director. If I understood him aright, he slightly queried the involvement of the Secretary of State.

I hope he will agree that it is surely right that the director, who will have overall responsibility for the regulation of the electricity industry, should make these regulations. However, under Clause 3 there is also another duty. It is a duty upon the Secretary of State to exercise his functions in a manner that he considers best calculated to protect the consumers' interests. It is entirely appropriate that the regulations relating to the guaranteed standards scheme should be made by the director with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Lord Peston

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. It is possible that I simply do not understand. I could read this paragraph meaning one of two things. The director may say to the Secretary of State, "I am proposing to make some regulations. Is that all right?", which is what I assumed it meant when it says that he may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make regulations. The Secretary of State may then agree that the director may make some regulations. But the alternative interpretation, which I cannot find in the text but did get from the noble Lord's reply, is that the director says to the Secretary of State, "I shall make these particular regulations. Are these okay?"

I can understand the logic of the latter as part of the Secretary of State's duty. He will say "If you want to make those regulations, in my view the specific regulations do not actually do the job". I can see that the Secretary of State has a locus following what the noble Lord said; but the clause reads simply as if what the director has to do is to make some regulations and ask for permission to do so. That to my naive way of reading it is clearly what the clause says. If the noble Lord's statement is what the clause means, I fully accept it. But it does not read as if what he said is what the clause provides.

Lord Glenarthur

Yes. What I said, I hope, is certainly meant to be a fair reflection of what the clause means in practice. The noble Lord is quite right in his interpretation of what I said meaning what the clause is intended to convey. Whether the noble Lord feels that the clause does not quite convey it in that way I do not think is entirely right. I do not believe that there is anything unusual in this. As the noble Lord said, the burden is essentially on the fact that the director "may" as opposed to any other construction of that. So his interpretation is correct.

Lord Peston

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he knows, there is no one less expert in interpreting legislation in this Chamber than I am. Clearly what he says makes sense and is what the clause ought to say. If he will let me know in due course that his lawyers and draftsmen state clearly without doubt and without further ado that that is what the clause means, then there is nothing between us on that matter.

Lord Trafford

May I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the whole clause from subsection (1) where "The Director may", down to subsection (6), where it states: an order … above shall be enforceable in England and Wales, as if it were a judgement of the county court", which means that the director's regulations will be given the power of a county court decision. I think it would, subject to correction from my noble friend, be most unlikely that such regulations could be agreed normally speaking in legislation or by Parliament in this Bill or any other unless they were subject to the Secretary of State and therefore indirectly to parliamentary control.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

A matter arises in connection with Clause 38(3), (4), (5), and (6) and the interrelation of these subsections. The problem arose on the last Committee day in relation to Clause 23 with reference to the arbiter. The clauses do not lie happily together so far as the consumer if concerned. If we take it in stages, Clause 38(3) states: If a public electricity supplier fails to meet a prescribed standard, he shall make to any person who is affected by the failure and is of a prescibed description such compensation as may be determined by or under the regulations. That is then followed by Clause 38(4): The making of compensation under this section in respect of any failure by a public electricity supplier to meet a prescribed standard shall not prejudice any other remedy which may be available in respect of the act or omission which constituted that failure. That would suggest to me—perhaps wrongly—that the Government are accepting that the compensation under the regulations will have its limitations. There will be prescribed degrees of compensation for failure. If that does not cover all the loss that the consumer has suffered—for example, economic loss by failure of the supply and so on—then theoretically he can go to court for the balance. Clearly what he has received under Clause 38(3) will be taken into account and no doubt deducted.

But—herein lies the problem—we then find in Clause 38(5): Any dispute arising under this section or regulations"— I ask the Committee to note the word "regulation"— made under it"— may be referred to the arbiter by either party. What happens if the supplier, having had a dispute with the consumer, takes the case to the arbiter before the consumer has had a chance to exercise his other rights under Clause 38(4)? If the arbiter makes a decision—and there is no right given to the consumer to refuse to go to the arbiter—if it is referred to the arbiter by the supplier that seems to be the end of the matter.

We then come to Clause 38(6), which provides that an order under subsection (5), which is an order by the arbiter: shall be final… in Scotland, as if it were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff". That suggests that if a consumer, not being satisfied but having had the decision of the arbiter taken against him, wishes to raise the matter in court he would be met by a plea of res judicata, the matter already having been adjudicated upon by the arbiter.

The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, offered to look again at Clause 23 in relation to the last amendment. Will he also take into account the fact that the same criticism applies to Clause 38(3) to (6)?

Lord Trafford

Before the noble Lord sits down I should like to put a point to him. This situation is not altogether different from the custom in most public sector authorities. It is similar to an internal complaints procedure that does not preclude a citizen's rights before the courts at common law or under any other statute. It refers only to the decision made by the director under these specific circumstances. Therefore, it does not rule out the right of the citizen to appeal to a court on other grounds relative to compensation.

Perhaps I may give an analogy. If my supply fails perhaps I have a charge via the regulations. However, if because of the failure of my supply I fall down the stairs and break my legs I may have a different type of claim which could be brought before the courts and that would be my ordinary right. That is my interpretation of the clause. As a result of these particular regulations and the situation I suggested to my noble friend that it should be the Secretary of State—

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

I believe that the question was directed towards me. If it was not I shall add nothing further—

Lord Glenarthur

It may be helpful if I intervene before Members become confused about who was asking whom and what. I agree with my noble friend Lord Trafford. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, set out the correct understanding of the clause.

Under the circumstances which the noble Lord envisages the former limitation does not apply to compensation. A person can receive compensation and then go to the court for full compensation, which was precisely what my noble friend Lord Trafford was saying. In relation to Clause 23, I note the relevance and connection which the noble Lord makes in terms of what my noble friend Lord Sanderson has agreed to reconsider. We shall make sure when reconsidering that both amendments make sense.

As regards the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, I have already mentioned that Clause 38 enables the director to establish by regulations standards which public electricity suppliers will be required to meet in the provision of electricity supply services to domestic customers and the compensation payable if the standards are not met. The director is required to consult with public electricity suppliers and persons and bodies representative of the consumer before making the regulations. The noble Lord's amendment would remove the requirement from the director to consult public electricity suppliers.

I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that public electricity suppliers should not be able to influence the setting of the standards to the extent that they are set at too low a level. However, the public electricity suppliers will be required to meet the standards. I suggest that it is only right that they should be able to put forward their views to the director before the regulations are made. That would enable them to comment on questions of practicality and so forth but the decision will remain that of the director. The company's views will be balanced by those of the persons appearing to the director to be representative of those likely to be affected and with whom he must also consult.

The noble Lord's third amendment would widen the scope of standards which the director will set under the clause to include services other than electricity supply services. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. The point about the guaranteed standards scheme is that it should apply to the activities of public electricity suppliers which they carry out as licence holders. I am referring to those activities which relate to the supply of electricity to consumers—such as meter reading, efficient maintenance of the system and so forth—for which the domestic customer has little choice of supply. As there will be little competition for the provision of those services in the foreseeable future at any rate, it is therefore only right that the public electricity suppliers should be required to meet certain standards and that the customer should be compensated for any failure to meet them.

In a way, this is also the other side of price control. It would be quite wrong if the supply companies could evade the effects of price control by lowering the standards of their service. However, it would not be appropriate for the standards to be extended to suppliers of other activities such as appliance sales and repairs. Those activities are carried out in competition with other high street appliance retailers and electrical contractors, as we all know. There is very active competition in the appliance supply market. The area boards certainly do not have a dominant position in that market and it would be inequitable if the electricity suppliers were required to meet certain standards in those areas which did not apply to their competitors.

The noble Lord asked me a question about the difference between standards and levels. My understanding is that standards would be set by the director and that "level" means how well the company does against those standards. That is what that is intended to convey and that is the purpose of the words as they appear in the Bill.

Lord Peston

I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I believe that I now understand some parts of this clause. I take his point on the Secretary of State and I do not need to press that matter.

I am concerned about public electricity suppliers, as he will be well aware. Yesterday's debate on brewing was a very good example of the power of producers influencing decisions. I am always aware that the consumer does not do anywhere near as well in this. I worry about that as regards the director general. However, I well understand the noble Lord's answer even though I should not go that way.

On the final part of my amendment, I see the logic of his answer. However, I believe that he should bear in mind that in practice, although the individual household will be protected by more general consumer legislation and, as the noble Lord said, by competition, it may nonetheless be considered very odd that a household can complain to the director about the supply of electricity as we define it in this Bill but if that same body comes to install an appliance the householder cannot complain about that. I take the noble Lord's point. I do not say that it is illogical but I believe that it may lead to certain difficulties between the consumer and the director in due course.

I asked one other question because I was hoping not to move my later amendment. I asked about the definition of "overall" as well as about the word "level". Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me on that point.

Lord Glenarthur

I most certainly will.

Lord Peston

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 188ZB and 188A not moved.]

Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 188AA. Page 30, line 42, leave out ("to domestic premises").

The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be convenient if Amendment No. 188B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, are discussed at the same time as my amendment. However, I shall concentrate on the amendment in my name.

Clause 38 provides for guaranteed standards of performance to consumers in domestic premises only. I follow what my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said when he was speaking on the background, about the emphasis in this clause as regards domestic consumers. However, there appears to be nothing to provide the same for other consumers; for example, small businesses. This amendment requires the director to determine and identify the categories of customer to whom guaranteed standards would be applicable. Should there not be provision for more than the domestic consumer on this matter?

That is especially relevant for Scotland and has been raised by the Electricity Consultative Council for the North of Scotland District. Therefore I look forward to an explanation by the Government of the present drafting and I hope that other categories may benefit from what my noble friend says.

My proposal is particularly relevant to rural areas. It was no surprise to me that the matter was raised by the Consultative Council for the North of Scotland. In the two previous debates which I have initiated in Committee I have drawn attention to the problems caused by distance, the cost of sea transport and other special questions arising in remote areas, particularly in the northern mainland of Scotland and the Islands. This amendment would provide some flexibility which is likely to be most helpful to small businesses. The Government in their responses to those last two debates initiated by me have shown that they have considered the situation in remote areas seriously and carefully, and for that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I trust that again today the Government will recognise the purpose of my remarks and indicate how they visualise these matters being handled when the Bill has become law. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his explanation of what lies behind his amendment. I have to say at the outset that we do not entirely favour the drafting of the amendment but perhaps I can put that in context by also saying that there may be practical difficulties in simply extending the schemes to cover all tariff customers. At present there are some 11 different tariffs operated by the industry for non-domestic customers, each of which varies from area board to area board. Furthermore, at present many large industrial consumers take all or part of their supplies on tariff. Therefore, it might be difficult, if not impractical, to distinguish in the Bill between different tariffs on any logical or consistent basis, particularly as the scales of tariffs change frequently and the situation may become even more complex after privatisation. With those difficulties in mind, our view is that a definition of the target group for the guaranteed standard scheme in terms of tariffs would be more or less impossible.

Having said that, I certainly recognise that there may be a case for widening the scheme to encompass, for example, small business customers and I should like to consider that point further with a view to returning at a later stage in the Bill. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that response.

Lord Campbell of Croy

I am extremely pleased with that reply and I am grateful to my noble friend for having seen the point and saying that he will consider it. As regards the wording of the amendment, I simply accepted the drafting which came to me and I do not know how much expertise there was in it.

I note that Amendment No. 188B, to which my noble friend also replied, inserts the words "tariff customers", which are not in my amendment. However, I think I have made it clear that the intention in my amendment is that the director should have the discretion to decide what categories of customer should be included as regards standards of performance. However, having heard the positive reply from my noble friend and if no one else wishes to add anything, I am glad to ask leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 188B to 191 not moved.]

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Standards of overall performance]:

[Amendment No. 191A not moved.]

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:

[Amendments Nos. 191B to 195 not moved.]

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Functions with respect to competition]:

[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Fixing of maximum charges for reselling electricity]:

9.30 p.m.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 200: Page 34, line 17, at end insert ("and without prejudice to the generality thereof, may be recovered by that person by deduction from any rent or other sum due or accruing due to the person reselling electricity, and to the extent of sum so deducted, such deduction shall be valid discharge of the rent or other sum due.").

The noble Lord said: I do not want to detain the Committee for very long with this amendment. It may seem to be a minor matter and we may be discussing relatively small sums when someone is overcharged. Nonetheless, to the person concerned it can be a very serious issue. Even though the sums appear small to us, they may not be so to the person concerned. In addition, where someone believes and is pretty certain that he has been overcharged there will also be a great sense of grievance that a wrong has been done.

Essentially this amendment is to bias the position slightly in favour of the tenant who may be in a weak position in any event. The amendment in effect says "I am paying my rent on a regular basis and there is no problem about that. I have been paying my bills as regards electricity which is here being resupplied or resold. In my view I am being overcharged. I have argued the matter with you, or the landlord or whoever is dealing with the matter. I now propose, as my opening shot, to deduct the excess from the electricity bill as you have submitted it to me".

As I understand it, some legislation dealing with landlord and tenant allows this kind of action to take place. The most obvious example is Section 57 of the Rent Act 1977, where one is actually discussing the overcharging of rent. I am not fully conversant with the Water Bill, but I understand that there is something along these lines in that Bill. Therefore what we are proposing does not represent any major new point of principle; it offers a little protection to the particular kind of consumer who most needs it and who is most likely to be exploited. That is the motivation behind the amendment.

What we are concerned about in pressing the amendment are the rights of a rather weak buyer of electricity. Whatever the merits of the specific wording that we have chosen, if the Government do not like it we feel it is incumbent on them to produce their own amendment which does the same job. As I say, it is a very minor matter when we are discussing the kind of billion pound question of nuclear power generation. In terms of principle and the likely people involved, I do not believe it is a minor matter at all. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

This clause is yet another example of our stated aim that our proposals will benefit the consumer. It preserves the protection given to those who do not buy their electricity directly from a public or private electricity supplier—for example, tenants who buy their electricity from their landlord—by giving the director the power to set a maximum price at which that electricity may be resold to such consumers.

In recognition that such consumers are not in a position to select their supplier, the scope of the clause is such that the maximum resale price will apply to all electricity supplies—not just to electricity supplied initially by a public electricity supplier—in order that all persons to whom electricity may be resold may have the same degree of protection.

The directors' powers will enable him to fix different maximum resale prices for different cases or circumstances as he considers necessary or right. The director will, in addition, be required to publish any prices he fixes so as to ensure adequate publicity for them, thus ensuring both that the supplier is aware of what he is entitled to charge, and that the consumer is aware of what he may be required to pay. Should a consumer be overcharged, the clause makes clear his right to recover the excess from the supplier.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I appreciate that the noble Lord is anxious through his amendment that redress for a tenant if he has been overcharged should be as simple as possible. As is clear from subsection (4) of Clause 42, we share the view that where overcharging takes place then there should be a right to recover that excess payment. I have to say, however, that I do not believe this amendment would simplify the process. On the other hand, I feel that it would add complications.

For example, if a person believed he was being overcharged and could not agree action to rectify this with the person selling him the electricity, he would have the right to seek a judgment in the courts for the recovery of moneys due to him. In most cases it is likely that this recovery would be achievable through the relatively simple procedures of the small claims court. Under the terms of the amendment, anyone thinking he was overcharged could unilaterally seek to recover the excess by refusing to pay his rent. Such action might lead to further action by the landlord where he did not agree that there was an overcharge, possibly through the courts for recovery of rent, or in the form of an eviction notice. That is clearly an undesirable situation.

We believe that the approach set out in the clause gives full protection to consumers who obtain their electricity on a resale basis. As I have demonstrated, the amendment—rather than improving on the provision for the customer—could make matters more difficult by endangering his tenancy.

In view of those remarks, I wonder whether the noble Lord might see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peston: I

thank the noble Earl for his answer. I am bound to say that I do not find it satisfactory, because I do not think he has the image of the sort of tenant I have in mind. The sort of tenant I have in mind is not a person who remotely could manage to go to the small claims court or anything of that sort at all.

I am a great admirer of the small claims court and I should like to see our legal system extended much more at that level of operation. I am talking about tenants who are very much on the margin of obtaining housing anyway who, whatever our arguments about the extent of poverty in our society, will typically be rather poor and not enormously capable tenants, and who are open to exploitation.

I am not suggesting for one moment that my solution is a very easy solution to the problem. What I am saying is that it does not seem to me that the Bill offers any solution. Listening to the noble Earl, while I always respect what he has to say, I am afraid that I do not find what he has said convincing. I feel that the Government in this kind of case, as a minimum—this is, after all, a major Bill and this is an opportunity that the Government must take—should at least say that they will think about this a little more. Again, I accept that without prejudice, but I am not happy with the answer I have been given.

The Earl of Dundee:

I would just remind the noble Lord that the sort of tenant he refers to could go to the consumers' committee for help and advice.

Lord Peston

Again, I suppose that the noble Earl's experience and my experience of society are slightly different. These are people who do not easily go to anything. That is the problem. The problem is that they need rather more direct help. I know there may be differences of philosophy between this Government and us these days, and we are regarded as slightly old-fashioned in our view that we wish to get a bit of protection for people. But the noble Earl says he or I might do things if we were in that position, because we are capable people. I have a different image in mind of people who are in more considerable difficulty. But I do not seem to get anywhere in persuading the noble Earl even to say that he will think about it. I will give him one last chance to say "I will think about it" and then I will give up.

The Earl of Dundee

I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making and I shall certainly think about it. I shall take it away and have another look at it. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it may not be satisfactory to put anything further in the Bill; but I shall certainly take it away.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Is the noble Earl taking it away with a view to coming back on Report with something more preferable to us?

The Earl of Dundee

I am grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to make clear to him the manner in which I am taking it away. I am taking it away without commitment.

Lord Peston

That at least is something; indeed, in view of the answers which the noble Earl was giving, I did not think that he was taking the matter away with commitment. I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to help in this respect and the noble Earl has at least taken the matter somewhat on board, which is the most I can expect in the circumstances. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Investigation of enforcement matters]:

[Amendments Nos. 202 to 202B not moved.]

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 [Investigation of certain other matters]:

[Amendment No. 202C not moved.]

Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 202D: Page 35, line 21, at end insert— ("(4A) Where on investigation under subsection (1) above the committee consider that the person authorised by licence to supply electricity should take certain steps (which may include the payment of compensation) it shall be the duty of the committee to make such a recommendation to the person licensed to supply electricity."). The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen and focus the role of the consumers' committees in investigating and resolving those complaints where the director general has no power to intervene; to give statutory recognition to the fact that in some cases compensation will be appropriate; and to bring the Electricity Bill into line with the Water Bill. Clause 27(1)(d) of the Water Bill states: It shall be the duty of a customer service committee … where the Committee considers it appropriate to do so in connection with any such complaint . …to make representations on behalf of the complainant to the company in question".

I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I certainly appreciate the noble Viscount's motives for putting forward this amendment. However, I must say to him that, despite his concerns about the Water Bill, I do not think that what he proposes is necessary. It seems to me that the provisions which are already written into the Bill ensure that an investigation by a consumers' committee under Clause 44 can in fact lead to positive action.

The purpose of Clause 44 is to enable the committees to investigate complaints from consumers about non-enforcement matters. Subsection (4) ensures that the findings of the committee after any such investigation will be referred back to the director for the exercise of any of his relevant functions. Such action on the part of the director might in an extreme case result in the modification of the relevant licence.

Therefore I hope that the noble Viscount will see that his proposed amendment is unnecessary, although perhaps I can reassure him further by pointing out that the committees already have a general duty under Clause 49 to make representations to the suppliers on any matter which appears to the committee to affect the interests of customers, or potential customers, of the supplier. There is nothing, therefore, that I can see to prevent the committees from making repesentations on the basis of investigations which they have carried out. I think that the comparison with the Water Bill is taken account of by Clause 49, to which I have referred.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Lord referred to the possibility of the consumers' committees taking "positive action", to use his exact words. But, what positive action has he in mind?

Lord Glenarthur

Far be it from me to indicate what any committee may decide under any given set of circumstances. However, under such circumstances as these I envisage that the first course of action that it might take under that subsection would be to refer the matter back. No doubt the committee would try to resolve the point at issue.

Viscount Hanworth

I am reassured by what the noble Lord has said. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]

Clause 44 agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Clause 45 [General functions]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 204: Page 35, line 36, leave out from ("on") to end of line 39.

The noble Lord said: The three amendments that I have tabled to the clause have one vein in common: a distaste for the clause and a deep belief that if the Government were seriously to amend the clause it could not result in anything less elegant than it is at present.

First, subsection (1)(b) reads: to collect information with respect to those activities, and the persons by whom they are carried on, 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 ask whichever of my noble friends is to reply to this brief debate to consider how those words would assist anyone who became involved in a dispute under the Bill or how ultimately they might assist a court whose duty it was to resolve such a dispute. I cannot help feeling that they would be nothing other than a hindrance. It is an act of charity on my part to offer the guidance to my noble friends that they should omit those words.

The second amendment that I have tabled has no connection with the first except the general distaste for the clause. Subsection (2) states: The Secretary of State may give general directions indicating—

1. (a) considerations to which the Director should have particular regard in determining the order of priority in which matters are to be brought under review in performing his duty under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above".

Let me take the opportunity to express once again my profound sympathy for Professor Littlechild, a man of great courage and an obvious sense of duty who has undertaken a heavy task. I do not believe that he will be in any way strengthened in the discharge of that task by being given guidance as to the precise order in which he should tackle the items of his duty. I commend that second point to my noble friends.

Before I become too eloquent on the subject let me turn quickly to the third amendment and say that the notion of having two directors involved in the same area of what might pleasingly be called human activities is not one which I find friendly or welcome in any way. Subsection (3) states: It shall be the duty of the Director, where either he considers it expedient or he is requested by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Fair Trading to do so, to give information, advice and assistance to the Secretary of State or that Director with respect to any matter in respect of which any function of the Director under this Part is exercisable".

Would it not be nice and friendly to leave out all reference to the Director General of Fair Trading and leave the matter to the Director General of Electricity Supply who will have enough trouble on his hands without having to argue little points of difference as to who does what in which particular dispute? I have an awful fear that it will not command the total agreement which it deserves, but I believe that my noble friends on the Front Bench should be turning round to me now with gratitude shining from their eyes, appreciating the wisdom of the guidance that they are now receiving. I cannot believe that they would not, at the minimum, wish to take this clause away and erase from the public memory those horrible words which they have put into the Bill, even if they do not accept my amendments which I now modestly commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

I shall do my best. I should like to clarify for the record that we are talking to Amendments Nos. 204, 206, 208 and 209. Perhaps I dare start by reminding Members of the Committee that the formulation in the Bill is well precedented in the Gas Act, the Telecommunications Act and indeed the Fair Trading Act.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I really hate to interrupt my noble friend but I had hoped that by this time she and others of her noble friends might have learnt that the repetition of hideous error is in no way a defence; nor is it even a palliation.

Baroness Hooper

I regret that the repetition of certain questions unfortunately calls for a rather similar response in some respects. Perhaps I may start with amendment No. 204, which is the provision in subsection (1)(b) which worries my noble friend. This provision is intended to ensure that the director may, so far as it appears to him practicable, collect information which is relevant and necessary to enable him to carry out his functions as specified under Part I of the Bill. It is not our intention to give the director powers which are unnecessarily intrusive or draconian, nor is it intended that the director should unnecessarily fish for information or waste his time and consumers' money in acquiring information that he does not need to do his job. For this reason, the power of the director to collect information under this subsection is not a blanket power. Rather it is designed to enable the director to become aware of, and to ascertain, circumstances relating to matters in respect of which he may wish to exercise his functions under this part of the Bill.

The provision in Clause 45(2) is simply intended to allow the Secretary of State to bring general matters to the director's attention where he feels it is appropriate. The Secretary of State may, for example, wish the director to review whether there are any significant barriers preventing new generators competing effectively with existing generators. The director will be free at all times to take account of other relevant considerations and it will be up to him in the end, after taking account of the general directions given by the Secretary of State, to make his own decisions on the matters on which he should concentrate.

If I may say so, during consideration of Clause 3 earlier in our Committee proceedings my noble friend put forward Amendment No. 64. As he may remember, that would have made the director explicitly accountable to the Secretary of State. I agreed, without commitment, on that occasion to look at his amendment again. But I hope he will acknowledge now that subsection (2) goes some way towards meeting his concerns and the arguments that he put forward at that stage.

I now turn to Amendments Nos. 208 and 209. The director in the course of his work will be uniquely placed to accumulate valuable expertise and knowledge about the electricity industry. It is therefore only sensible that he should give information, advice and assistance to the Director General of Fair Trading as well as to the Secretary of State where the Director General of Fair Trading requests him to do so in respect of the electricity industry. They will be working together and we have taken care not only here but in other parts of the Bill to ensure that their duties intermesh. I trust that with those explanations my noble friend will feel somewhat reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

In no way do I feel reassured. Perhaps I may take Members of the Committee back very briefly to the amendment to which my noble friend referred. So far as I recollect, what I then suggested was that the director general should be answerable to the Secretary of State. That did not mean—it was the last thing that I wished to call down upon his unoffending head—a stream of directions from the Secretary of State indicating the order of priority in which matters were to be brought under review in the performance of his duty.

I sometimes feel that Ministers and their departments, in setting out the arguments with which amendments should be rebutted, omit to read or reread the words which Parliament or this Chamber seek to amend. I shall withdraw the amendment, but without any note of satisfaction as regards my request being agreed to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 205 to 209 not moved.]

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 [Publication of information and advice]:

[Amendments Nos. 210 to 212 not moved.]

Clause 46 agreed to.

9.56 p.m.

Clause 47 [Keeping of register]:

[Amendments Nos. 212A to 212C not moved.]

Clause 47 agreed to.

Clause 48 [Annual and other reports]:

[Amendment No. 212D not moved.]

Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 213: Page 37, line 25, at end insert ("; and

1. (e) include a detailed survey of initiatives undertaken by the Director to further environmental protection and enhancement.").

The noble Viscount said: I think it will be convenient if I also speak to Amendment No. 214. Under the Bill, the director is required to make an annual report to the Secretary of State covering the four specified matters. These amendments add environmental protection and enhancement, energy conservation and the efficient use of electricity and initiatives to alleviate fuel poverty to the list on which the director is required to report. I beg to move.

Baroness Hooper

I trust that the noble Viscount is speaking to Amendments Nos. 213, 214 and 215. I believe that we should not be over-specific about what the director should, or should not, include in his annual report. The annual report is the director's report on his activities in the year; and it should be for him to decide what to include in it, subject always to the provisions of Clause 48(2). As has been said on several occasions, the office of the director will be a key post. The individual with the many rare talents to fulfil it we believe we have found in the person of Professor Littlechild. We should not, therefore, be over-prescriptive in what he should, or should not, include in his annual report.

Clause 48(2) provides that every annual report shall include a general survey of developments in respect of matters falling within the scope of the director's functions. In carrying out these functions, the director will, of course, have to have regard to the general duties set out in Clause 3.

The noble Viscount also suggests in his amendment that the director's report should be specific about his initiatives on the environment. On this point, I beg to differ. The impact of the electricity supply on the environment is, as we have already discussed, controlled by a large range of legislation and directives. We believe it would be unwise to place an additional duty on the director to do what is already being done elsewhere by authorities with specific expertise in environmental protection. I trust this will reassure the noble Viscount, and that he will therefore be able to withdraw the amendment.

10 p.m.

Baroness Seear

I must say that I find the response of the noble Baroness extremely disappointing and rather surprising in view of what she has just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, complained that the director was being subjected to a great many highly prescriptive instructions from the Secretary of State. Now from these Benches we have asked simply that in his annual report the director should include specific reference to one of the items to which we, and I think all Members of the Committee, attach the greatest importance—the effect on the environment of the work that has been done. It appears that it does not matter being highly prescriptive on a matter of pedantic detail in the previous amendment, but on this, a matter of the highest importance, we are not allowed to be prescriptive. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again.

Viscount Hanworth

I am not very happy with the reply of the noble Baroness. In the Bill it is stated that the director's report shall include the information set out in four subsections. I agree that those items are rather different from my suggestion. Nevertheless, if we attach importance to the environment—and we have attached immense importance to the environment every day that we have sat in this Committee—I should have thought that the noble Baroness could at least have included these vital issues as a specific requirement in the director's report. I ask her, without any commitment, to consider the matter again because the reply that she gave was not very satisfactory.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I should like to reinforce what the noble Viscount has said. Perhaps on this occasion the noble Baroness could be generous and consider whether or not this very modest requirement—it is quite important but modest—should be included in the Bill. I know that she has in her brief, "resist". Could she not take the initiative and say that she will consider it and bring the matter back?

Baroness Hooper

We have tried to indicate that throughout the Bill there is a series of provisions which create checks and balances to cover the activities of the director and others concerned. Perhaps it is the late hour, but I succumb to the persuasion of noble Lords opposite and I shall look at the matter again, without commitment.

Viscount Hanworth

I thank the Minister very much and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 214 to 215B not moved.]

Clause 48 agreed to.

Clause 49 [General duty to advise Director etc.]:

[Amendment No. 215C not moved.]

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 216: Page 38, line 8, after ("area") insert ("and to hold not less than four public meetings each year in different pails of the authorised area of each public electricity supplier allocated to the committee.").

The noble Lord said: Here we continue to play the rather elaborate game that we have been playing on this Bill. We have here the consumer committees which we all agree are of enormous importance. Clause 49 tells us the duties of the consumer committees. It also tells us what the consumer committees will actually do.

Curiously, one of the things that the consumer committees are not asked to do is to hold public meetings. Indeed, they are not told at all how to forge links with consumers and how to represent the views of consumers. I find that very surprising. I should have thought that the Government would want there to be meetings because that presents not merely an opportunity to represent the views of consumers, but also a way of reassuring consumers. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Why I said that we are resuming an elaborate game is, to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because if one complains about the detail one is told that the detail is required, but if one puts forward detail which one would like included one is told that that interferes with the freedom of the body concerned. In other words, to every proposal there is a counter proposal, but there is no consistency of principle throughout the Bill which says that it will all be done one way and we shall not interfere or it will be done another way and we shall be prescriptive. As I said, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put that in the clearest possible way.

If the noble Baroness wishes to debate the merits of public meetings, that is fine; I should like to hear from her. However, I hope that I shall not receive from whoever replies a statement to the effect that we do not want to tell the committees how to do their job. We have not hesitated to tell all sorts of other people how to do their jobs in the Bill, so there is no issue of principle here. The point is the enormous value of having public meetings of that kind and, perhaps I should add, the enormous value to the privatised industry. This is not an anti-industry point; it would be extremely helpful to the suppliers.

Lord Glenarthur

I certainly recognise that it was made perfectly clear at an earlier stage in the Bill that we would look at the whole question of public meetings. I understand the concerns that lie behind the views of the noble Lord on the matter, so I hope that what I say will be taken in the context of that review.

I do not think that it would be necessary to require consumers' committees to behave in quite the way that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes. Our view is that, given the wide variation in geography, consumer base and other such matters which exist between the areas that will be served by the new supply companies, the consumers' committees should have the freedom to decide how best to carry out their local representative functions in the light of local conditions. For example, one approach might be to set up local representative sub-committees, as is provided for by Schedule 2 to the Bill. An alternative approach would be that suggested by others in the past. In some instances the committees might feel it appropriate to adopt both, but I believe that it should be up to individual consumers' committees to decide upon such matters. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are already looking at the whole question of public meetings. I hope that he will understand the force of my argument and agree not to press the amendment.

Lord Peston

I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He partly gave me the answer that I did not want; namely, that we must leave matters to the consumers' committees. I am anxious to give them as much freedom as they can possibly manage, but I think that this is a case where they should not have freedom. Since I understood the noble Lord to say that the Government were thinking through the whole area of what the committees should be set up to do, it would be foolish on my part to press him while the Government are still thinking about the matter. He has at least heard what I have said. I wait to hear the Government's thinking as that seems to me to be the most appropriate thing to do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Periodical and other reports]:

[Amendments Nos. 216A to 217 not moved.]

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 218: Page 38, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish briefly to ask my noble friend to what extent those committees matter. Are they of any importance or are they mere exercises in sedation aimed at quietening down customers who have become irritated? If, as I anticipate, the Government's answer is that the committees are of some importance, then I believe that the reports that they are obliged to make in response to a request from the director general or reports which they feel that they should make and wish to make—both of them—should be published. Otherwise they will feel that their views, when they come to express them, will just be quietly put on one side and buried without anybody ever having a chance to see them and appreciate whether or not they have merit.

I hope that, even if my noble friends will not accept this amendment tonight, nevertheless they may perhaps think that, just in order to convince people that they believe that these committees are of real importance, these amendments or something along these lines ought to find a place in the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

I am grateful to my noble friend. I think it is important to see the director and the consumers' committees in context. They each have a set of powers and duties aimed at the common goal of protecting the interests of consumers. They will be working together with that aim in mind. Our proposals will in practice give consumers' committees greater authority than any of the existing representative bodies, and the Electricity Consumers Council has very much welcomed this as a major step forward. It is a brand new venture. Because the activities of consumers' committees and the director will be co-ordinated in this way, it makes sense also for the publication of the reports that we are discussing to be by the director. Such reports will have the double authority of the committee and the director and they will have greater force.

Perhaps I may just say to my noble friend that there is nothing sinister at all in confining the power to publish to the director. Let me give my noble friend one or two examples. Under Clause 50(4) the director, in publishing any report under this section, has to have regard to the need for excluding so far as is practicable any matter which might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of a person or body. To enable him to do so, the director will need an element of discretion in the publication of a report under Clause 50. Secondly, the director may have asked a number of consumers' committees to report to him on a complex technical matter. Once consumers' committees have reported individually, the director may then wish to consider whether it would be more helpful to consumers to consolidate the information and findings into an integrated report. The present wording of the clause gives him the necessary discretion to do so. My noble friend's amendment would take away that discretion. I hope that in the light of those remarks he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel

With great respect, the noble Earl has not answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. What the noble Lord seeks, and we would support, is an obligation on the director to publish. He has discretion; it is given in the latter part of the section: in such manner as he considers appropriate". The noble Lord is not trying to change that provision. That is his first point. The noble Earl's second point seemed to be wholly otiose to the argument. The noble Lord is seeking to achieve, and I support him, that the director shall have an obligation to make sure that the public get to know what the consumer committees are saying in their reports.

The Earl of Dundee

With respect, I think that the noble Lord may not perhaps have managed to look at the total arrangement in this context; namely, that the director will make sure that the public are properly informed. It is simply that he does not have to publish everything that is given to him. He can use his discretion and judgment. I think that, should we adopt my noble friend's amendment, that discretion would disappear.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He paraphrased me very fairly even though he did not completely understand the burden of my remarks. I must say to my noble friend that his opening remarks shocked me considerably because I believed that he was on the verge of accepting my amendment. That would of course come as a very great surprise to me as it would have done to anybody sitting behind me because such a thing happens only very rarely. I should not readily have recovered from such a shock. However, the subsequent remarks of my noble friend made me feel more at home because his meaning became covered with a soapy camouflage that made it quite clear that he was going to reject my amendment on the usual ground that it would not help, or some remark of that kind.

The Government's view of the importance of the consumers' committee that they are setting up will be assessed not according to the status that it has enjoyed in the past but the regard in which its work will be held in the future. If a director general is going to be free to call for a report, and then does not like it, he may say, "I shall have nothing to do with it. I shall bury it". I believe that is wrong.

However, at this hour of the night I realise that it will be no good to press my noble friends to desert the habits of a corporate lifetime. They cannot do so. However, I hope that they may break with precedence so far as to have a genuine look at the point enshrined in the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.15 p.m.

[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 [Compensation for chairmen and officers of abolished Councils]:

[Amendments Nos. 219A to 219C not moved.]

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Continuity of employment of officers of abolished Councils]:

[Amendments Nos. 219D and 219E not moved.]

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:

[Amendment No. 219F not moved.]

The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 220: Page 40, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) the Director General of Water Supply;").

The noble Earl said: Clause 54 provides disclosure gateways for certain information which has been obtained under Part I of the Bill, so that such information may be made available to specified public or statutory authorities. These amendments create an additional disclosure gateway for information to be disclosed to the Director General of Water Supply who will be appointed when the Water Bill is enacted.

With the approval of Members of the Committee, I move this purely technical amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 220A not moved.]

Viscount Hanworth moved Amendment No. 221: Page 40, line 36, 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 Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are grouped together. Amendment No. 221 is a probing amendment to secure an assurance that the clause as at present drafted does not prevent the normal flows of information associated with effective operation of industrial relations and consultation procedures. Amendment No. 222 likewise is to obtain an assurance that the clause as presently drafted cannot be used to prevent the flow of information on health and safety matters necessary if the machinery for promoting the health and safety of persons employed to be established under Clause 54(3)(d) is to be effective. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

Although I sought not to move this amendment because it is a late hour of the night and it is an extremely important amendment, I am nevertheless grateful to the noble Viscount for having moved it. It is of course the property of the Committee while it is on the Table. It goes without saying that we certainly support the rights of employees and the continuity of the collective bargaining arrangements. As I said, this is a very late hour to debate such an important subject. I do not wish to go on about it because we have to finish at a certain time. I should not like the noble Baroness to feel that we on these Benches do not feel strongly about this issue.

Baroness Hooper

I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for their succinct introduction of the amendment. I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the assurance that he seeks. We believe that, apart from these duties to secure for employees in the industry the establishment of health and safety machinery which is relevant to the director's duty, the director will otherwise play no part in the conduct of industrial relations to the privatised industry, whether it be collective bargaining or any form of negotiating machinery. I take the opportunity to make that point and I trust that it is helpful.

Viscount Hanworth

I thank the Minister very much, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 223: Page 41, line 5, at end insert— ("(mm) the Water Act 1989;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56 [Making of false statements etc.]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 223A: Page 42, line 29, at end insert— ("(1A) Any person who seeks to obtain entry to any premises by falsely pretending to be—

1. (a) an employee of a public electricity supplier;
2. (b) an electrical inspector; or
3. (c) a meter examiner,

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.").

The noble Baroness said: There can be few activities more contemptible than gaining entry into another person's home by deceitful means. The elderly and the handicapped in particular are most vulnerable to these confidence tricksters. It is right that they should be appropriately punished. The amendment brings the Bill into line with other recent legislation. I am reasonably confident that it will gain support from all sides of the Chamber and also from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

We should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her amendment. It is an important amendment and reflects a great deal of worry on the part of people who innocently or otherwise are subjected to confidence tricks, if I may put it that way. I speak with a certain amount of personal knowledge, because I was the subject of a confidence trick of the kind that the noble Baroness has described, not perpetrated, I am happy to say, by an employee of the London Electricity Board, but by an employee of the Gas Board before it was privatised. He gained entry with a view to reading the meter. Somehow my wife and I were not around and we found certain things missing after he had left. I believe that this is something which the Government ought to accept. The noble Baroness has a point, and I speak with a strong degree of personal feeling about the matter.

I hope that the noble Baroness will be sympathetic towards her noble friend's proposed amendment.

Baroness Hooper

In expressing feelings of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for a most unfortunate experience, I reassure him that we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for bringing forward this amendment which would make it an offence to gain entry in this way. We welcome the protection that such a provision will offer householders. This is wholly in line with the Government's objectives of seeking to ensure the widest possible degree of consumer protection in the Bill. I recommend that the Committee accept it.

Baroness Blatch

I am most grateful to my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 56, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Williams of Elvel

Having supported with great sympathy the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I am somewhat unhappy about Clause 56 as it stands, even as amended. It goes much wider than the amendment of the noble Baroness. The clause states that it is an offence: If any person, in giving any information or making any application under or for the purposes of any provision of this Part, or of any regulations made under this Part, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular". The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is aware that in the Scottish courts the word "reckless" has a different meaning from that in the English courts. I return to the Financial Services Act which was discussed in this House. Someone may recklessly and without paying attention make a statement which affects any provision under this part. The number of provisions under this part is enormous and the director and other people can ask for this, that and the other. If the person has an off day or does not know what he is talking about and is condemned on summary conviction to a fine, that appears to be harsh. I wonder whether that is what the Government have in mind.

In particular I should like to discuss the problem of recklessness in the provision of information because that is where the problem lies. I am prepared to accept the fact that if someone deliberately makes a false statement he should be guilty of an offence. However, he may recklessly make a statement not knowing whether it is right or wrong. The person may be a tenant in a council house and have no idea when saying to the electricity chap, "I think that that is right". For that person to be caught under this clause appears to be a little fierce. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider the wording.

Baroness Hooper

This is an essential and important clause in the Bill and obviously we wish to get it right. Therefore, I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I shall look into the definition of "recklessness". I shall write to the noble Lord or come back at a later stage.

Lord Williams of Elvel

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I say on historical evidence from my former noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna that the definition of "reckless" in Scotland—and this is a United Kingdom Bill—is different from that in England and Wales. Perhaps that should be looked into.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

Certainly we shall take up the point and look at the definition of "reckless" under Scottish law.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 [Powers to make regulations]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 224: Page 43, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: If the amendment had arisen at an earlier hour I should not have been able to resist the temptation to regale Members of the Committee with powerful arguments in order to make it irresistible. However, at this hour of night I have neither the eloquence nor the charm of my noble friend Lady Blatch. Somehow or other she has the key to my noble friend's heart or mind and is able to secure her agreement. I can only envy her.

I content myself with asking my noble friend whether she would be good enough to tell me in one sentence what is the precedent or excuse for these horrible words which I seek to leave out of the Bill. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

This is becoming a fairly familiar chorus. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I seem to agree on the matters which we are now discussing. It is the most extraordinary piece of drafting. The Bill states: Regulations made under any provision of this Part may provide for anything", and anybody may do anything he likes without worrying about Parliament. Paragraph (c) continues: make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Director considers appropriate". We really do not need this Bill at all. As a Bill we need Clause 57(3). The rest of the Bill can be scrapped because that subsection gives the power to do anything in any circumstances. This seems to me to be something which, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, says, on another day in another place we should resist very strongly indeed. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is to reply to this amendment. I very much look forward to what he has to say to justify this wholly unconstitutional provision which the Government are trying to write into the Bill.

Lord Bonham-Carter

We must be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for introducing this amendment. When one reads subsection (3) and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is a most extraordinary provision to insert into a Bill of this nature. It is a catch-all provision which can catch anyone for anything. I believe that this Committee would be acting in a guilty fashion if, even at this hour, it is prepared to be so supine as to accept this. This is a monstrous provision. I believe that the noble Baroness will have to put up some very convincing arguments to justify a provision which is so very wide, absolutely unnecessary and, I should have thought, contrary to all precedent.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

I am afraid that I join the chorus from this Front Bench and I must disappoint my noble friend again. Even at this late hour I shall take a little time to go through this particular provision to try to explain why it is there.

Clause 57 makes general provision concerning the content of regulations made under Part I of the Bill. Regulations will play an important role in the operation of the electricity industry after privatisation. Subordinate legislation arising from this Bill will serve to give effective guidelines and rules on how certain of the Bill's procedures should operate on the ground. Some of these regulations will deal with highly complex or technical subjects. Examples are the electricity supply regulations, which will continue in effect under Clause 29; and regulations on meters, to be made under the provisions of Schedule 7.

Regulations of this sort must be able to make different provision for different cases. Meter regulations must be able to deal properly with credit meters and pre-payment meters: it would be foolish to suppose that one set of requirements as to pattern or construction would be suitable for both these descriptions of meter. The supply regulations contain different height above ground provisions for different voltages of electric line, and also different provisions according to whether the line is above a road or not. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) is essential to allow regulations to contain provisions such as these.

Similarly with paragraph (a) of the subsection, regulation 29 of the supply regulations contains a procedure for the determination of disputes between a supplier and a consumer, over the manner of connecting up the consumer's installation, by a person appointed for the purpose by the Secretary of State. Any such dispute is likely to be technical in nature, and it is only right that the regulations should allow the Secretary of State to find a person with the right qualifications to resolve the particular dispute. Without a provision like paragraph (a) the regulations would have had to provide for disputes to be determined by the Secretary of State or some other named person, and that in turn could have led to some dispute being determined by a person lacking the proper qualifications to understand and decide it properly.

Paragraph (c) does no more than spell out on the face of the Bill a proposition which might otherwise be regarded as inherent in any power to make subordinate legislation. In that sense, it is positively valuable because it tells the Committee that the powers in Part I of the Bill to make regulations include the power to include these additional provisions in the regulations.

I hope I have demonstrated that subsection (3) is a necessary part of the Bill. Perhaps I may end with three observations which may reassure my noble friend and any noble Lords who are still uneasy about this provision. First, it only applies in relation to regulations made under Part I of the Bill—the electricity supply part of the Bill; secondly, it has nothing to do with any powers to make orders—the authority for the content of any order has to be found in the clause under which the order is made and not in Clause 57; and, thirdly, it does not enable the Government to hide things away from Parliament—regulations which draw some of their authority from Clause 57 will still be subject to scrutiny in the usual way.

I am tempted to speak about precedents but in view of what has been said already tonight I shall resist that temptation.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar

It was interesting to hear the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, of Clause 57(3), but, with the greatest respect, I may be better informed but I am none the wiser, as someone said on another occasion.

There used to be a prize for gobbledegook, and subsection (3)(a) would be a strong contender for that prize. I wonder whether it is necessary to have all this particularisation in subsection (3) at all. Would it not be neater to have a clause just saying that regulations can be made in relation to anything arising from this part of the Bill, full stop? When one starts restricting the operation of the regulations one creates problems. It might be better if the noble Lord were to take that subsection away and reconsider the wording because at present it makes incredible reading.

We have heard much about consumer rights and how this Bill is to be easily understood by the electricity consumer, but the ordinary man or woman picking up the Bill in its present form would probably shut it and say that it is not worth reading because it is unintelligible. I seriously suggest that rewording should be considered for Clause 57(3). In the two lines and two words of paragraph (b) the word "different" appears four times. Why is that necessary? Does it add anything to the provisions of the Bill? Could it not be more neatly and succinctly put if the noble Lord were to take it away and reconsider the wording?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may say that I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in matters legal. It would be churlish of me not to consider whether the wording which I have tried to describe in subsection (3)(a) is correct or incorrect. Of course I give an assurance that I shall ask those who have drawn up this statute to look again at the wording but I have to say that it will be without any commitment. Those who are not involved with the law can be as flippant as they like about terminology but I have to say to the noble Lord that in my view it will be difficult to change. Nevertheless, I certainly take his suggestion on board to see if change can or should be made.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am very grateful for the last words of my noble friend and almost moved by them. Perhaps I may put it this way: so great is my admiration and respect for him that my imagination is defeated when I come to attempt to envisage the indignation and the noble rage with which he would have rejected the explanation that he has now offered to me had our positions been reversed and I had offered it to him.

I am a hungry man and I derive what comfort I can from my noble friend's comments as to what these words will not and cannot do. That is at least something. I moved the amendment with very great brevity. I asked my noble friend if he could and would in one sentence tell me what were the precedents for these horrid words. At the very end of his answer to me he became oddly shy and that great shield of precedent that is held up to cover every rubbishy argument that any government ever adduces for nasty legislation was suddenly thrown away—discarded.

I still ask, though I do not want an answer, and I am still wondering whether there is any precedent for these horrid words. I also ask myself how long we shall have to wait before some Minister or other comes to this Committee or another place and produces something equally nasty and refers to this particular subsection of this Bill as a precedent.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

Before my noble friend sits down, though I find it difficult to convince him of past legislation being all that helpful as we progress through this Bill, I notice that in Section 64 of the Electricity Act 1947 there is a similar section, so it is precedented.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

It is a horrible thought but no excuse!

Lord Williams of Elvel

Has 41 or 42 years made no difference in life?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

It is quite clear that legislation passed by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has been a precedent in this case.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I am once again sadly convinced how deeply encrusted in sin governments become. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Concurrent proceedings]:

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 224A: Page 43, line 19, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("either or both").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 224B, 224C, 224D, 224E and 224F. The Government have decided to make certain changes to Clause 58, dealing with concurrent proceedings, and to Clause 59, dealing with public inquiries. The reasons are to provide greater flexibility in arranging public inquiries into matters which are related to each other, when this is convenient for the parties concerned, and to provide greater clarity.

Amendments Nos. 224C and 224D correct errors in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 58 as introduced. The replacement subsections now provide that proceedings for the secondary matter—for example in the case of a power station, the compulsory purchase order—may be taken concurrently with the proceedings for the primary matter, which is the power station consent, rather than vice versa. I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Lord, in moving the amendment and speaking to the group, referred to certain errors in the drafting of the Bill as we have it before us. Did I hear him correctly? What are the errors, and why were they not spotted in another place?

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

The answer to that is that they probably were spotted in the other place. That is why we have come forward with amendments which we feel are more correct so far as concerns this clause.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 224B, 224C, 224D and 224E: Page 43, line 20, at end insert ("and"). Page 43, line 23, leave out from ("Scotland)") to end of line 39 and insert— ("(2) The proceedings which—

1. (a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order, are required by Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 to be taken for the purpose of confirming that order;
2. (b) in the case of an application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to this Act, are required by paragraphs 7 to 12 of that Schedule to be taken in relation to that application,

may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by Schedule 8 to this Act to be taken in relation to the application for consent under section 35 of this Act."). Page 44, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) The proceedings which—

1. (a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order, are required by Part II of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 or Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947 to be taken for the purpose of confirming that order;
2. (b) in the case of an application under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to this Act, are required by that paragraph to be taken in relation to that application;
3. (c) in the case of a reference under paragraph 8 of that Schedule, are required by that paragraph to be taken in relation to that reference,

may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by Schedule 8 to this Act to be taken in relation to the application for consent under section 36 of this Act."). Page 44, line 20, leave out from ("paragraph") to ("under") in line 23 and insert ("8 to be taken in relation to the reference under that paragraph may be taken concurrently (so far as practicable) with the proceedings required by the said paragraph 5 to be taken in relation to the application").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 [Public inquiries]:

[Amendment No. 224EA not moved.]

Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 224F: Page 44, line 34, at end insert— ("(3) Where—

1. (a) an inquiry is to be held under this Part in connection with any matter; and
2. (b) in the case of some other matter required or authorised (whether by this Part or by any other enactment) to be the subject of an inquiry ("the other inquiry"), it appears to the relevant Minister or Ministers that the matters are so far cognate that they should be considered together,

the relevant Minister or Ministers may direct that the two inquiries be held concurrently or combined as one inquiry. (4) In subsection (3) above "the relevant Minister or Ministers" means the Secretary of State or, where causing the other inquiry to be held is a function of some other Minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State and chat other Minister acting jointly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 [Interpretation etc. of Part I]:

[Amendment No. 224G not moved.]

Clause 61 agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.