Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill

HL Deb 13 March 1992 vol 536 cc1503-17

Midday

Report received.

Clause 1 [Standards of performance]:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 9, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, moved amendments to require the directors general for telecommunications, gas supply and electricity supply to conduct research into the views of individual customers, when setting standards of performance, in addition to the requirement that customer representative bodies be consulted.

I agree that the views of customers should be known before performance standards are set, if those standards are to be of benefit to the customer.

As I promised in Committee, I have considered further the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I have decided that it is right to require the directors general to research the views of individual customers likely to be affected before setting standards. I have therefore tabled these amendments covering such consultation by all four directors general for both individual service standards and overall performance standards. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for listening to our arguments which we put forward in Committee and for bringing forward amendments which meet our case. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that he was speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 to 29 and 34? If he is, we support those amendments.

Lord Reay

My Lords, indeed I was.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. Can my noble friend assure the House that the research will include research into methods of payment, particularly payments by people with disabilities and those who are elderly who often have considerable difficulty in obtaining the right tokens and so on for prepayment meters?

Lord Reay

My Lords, that question should be dealt with by the directors general.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 14, at end insert ("and (c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 43, at end insert: ("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 28 to 31.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, tabled four amendments during the Committee stage of this Bill with the intention of ensuring that the Director General of Telecommunications was required to state reasons for his determination of a dispute. In view of the strong support expressed by the Committee for those amendments, I promised to give some further consideration to this matter.

I have now done so. As I indicated to the Committee, we believe it is important that the Director General of Telecommunications and the other three regulators should give reasons for their determinations of disputes. I understand that where they have existing powers of determination they do so. Furthermore, a failure by the regulators to give reasons is likely to be grounds for judicial review—a view upheld in the recent case of the Crown v. the Civil Service Appeal Board ex parte Cunningham. Even without any statutory obligation on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations, it is highly unlikely, therefore, that they would fail to do so.

Nevertheless, it became clear during discussion of the amendments that there was a considerable body of opinion in this House which favoured placing a clear requirement in the Bill on the regulators to give reasons for their determinations. I have reflected upon the views put forward and am persuaded that there would be considerable advantage in putting the question of the need for the regulators to give reasons for their determinations beyond any doubt.

I have therefore tabled these amendments, which implement the proposal of the noble and learned Lord Brightman that the Director General of Telecommunications should state reasons for his determinations. It is clearly right that the same requirement should be placed upon all four regulators so I am also proposing that the Bill should be amended to require the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Water Services to state reasons for their determinations. I commend these amendments to the House.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for reconsidering the amendments which I tabled and for tabling the current amendments.

Baroness Platt of Writtle

My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend's amendments which will be a great improvement to the Bill and I support them wholeheartedly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5: Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("may") to end of line 12. Page 3, line 21, at end insert: ("(2) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

1. (a) consulting the designated operator concerned and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and
2. (b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 [Disputes about discrimination etc. in fixing charges]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 6: Page 6, line 8, at end insert: ("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (3) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Billing disputes]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7: Page 7, line 23, at end insert: ("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Deposits]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 7A: Page 8, line 33, at end insert: ("( ) Except in such circumstances as may be specified in the criteria, no person who is disabled (as defined by the criteria) shall be required to pay a deposit before being provided with any relevant service by the designated operator.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, I listened with some sympathy, to the anxieties voiced by noble Lords that disabled people should not be dissuaded from having the benefit of their own telephone by the need to raise a deposit where this is required by the designated operator.

As I explained to the Committee on that occasion, the Government similarly wish to see a system in place that is fair to the disabled and, despite the commendable action which BT is already taking, we are not complacent about this issue. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who tabled an amendment on this subject, voiced interest in the new steps being taken by BT and withdrew his amendment to consider the situation further.

I too have been giving the issue further consideration. I am anxious to do as much as possible to protect the interests of the disabled, but the Government cannot lose sight of the position of customers as a whole. The original amendment went too wide in that it provided a blanket exemption and did not attempt to define who would qualify as "disabled". Instead of it, I have therefore tabled the amendment now on the Marshalled List. The effect of this will be that the operator will not be able to require a deposit from a disabled person except in circumstances specified in the criteria agreed by the director general; and "disabled" will also be defined in the criteria. Together with the amendment introduced in Committee requiring consultation with bodies representative of those likely to be affected, this will ensure that the interests of the disabled are fully understood and considered in the context of setting deposit criteria. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking on board the anxieties expressed not only by me but also by other noble Lords. This is an extremely welcome amendment which I wholeheartedly support. Perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to ask the director general to let other noble Lords who spoke in Committee and I know what the criteria are when he has had a chance to consider them.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, we welcome the amendment moved by the Minister. I do not necessarily have the same request as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because I do not wish to be deluged with too much paper. However, I should welcome a statement at a fairly early stage by the director stating how he intends to interpret the clause and what kind of criteria he has in mind. That will achieve the same objective as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seeks. The matter is rather up in the air at the moment but we hope that that will be defined so that it can be discussed if necessary.

Lord Reay

My Lords, the question of criteria is a matter which needs to be drawn up by the designated operators in the first instance for approval by the director general. The director general has to agree to them and my understanding is that those criteria will be publicised. I am willing to give the assurance that I will ask the directors general to reply to noble Lords who have requested information.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 8: Page 9, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, unless the complaint has been withdrawn or it is otherwise inappropriate to proceed,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Ezra and Lord Hacking, supported an amendment to Clause 7 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill in Committee.

The point at issue concerned the actions of the Director General of Telecommunications if he considered that the criteria for deciding how large a deposit, if any, a person should be asked to pay had been either incorrectly applied or was inappropriate to a particular case. In such circumstances the Bill as currently drafted would allow the director to determine whether a person should have to pay a deposit and, if so, how much it should be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and several other noble Lords, suggested that in such a case the director should be obliged to make such a determination rather than having the discretion to do so.

I agreed in Committee to look further into the arguments of noble Lords. I have now done so and on reflection agree that the director should be obliged to make a determination on the necessity for, and the size of, a deposit when he considers that a designated operator has incorrectly applied criteria for assessing the need for a deposit or where those criteria were inappropriate to the particular case. This amendment will place such an obligation on the director, but will make allowance for cases where it is clearly inappropriate for him to make a determination; for instance, where a person withdraws his request for a phone or, more seriously, where a person has been sent to prison or died.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for raising the issue and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my amendment and for tabling this version of it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9: Page 9, line 25, at end insert: ("( ) Any person giving a direction under subsection (3) above shall include in the direction his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the complaint.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Enforcement of standards of performance, etc.]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 10: Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("above") to end of line 12.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 24A. These are drafting amendments which have no substantive effect. It is not usual to include a description of the section when reference is made to another section in the same Act. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 remove two such descriptions from new section 27K, which is inserted in the Telecommunications Act 1984 by Clause 9 of the Bill.

Amendment No. 24A corrects a cross-reference in Clause 37 which is incorrect as a result of the addition of a further subsection. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 11: Page 10, line 27, leave out ("(procedure for dealing with complaints)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 [Standards of performance]:

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 16: Page 12, line 28, leave out ("and"). Page 12, line 33, at end insert ("and (c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be so affected and considering the results."). Page 13, line 19, at end insert: ("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (6) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute."). Page 13, line 35, leave out from ("may") to ("from") in line 37. Page 13, line 45, at end insert: ("(1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

1. (a) consulting the public gas suppliers and persons or bodies appearing to the Director to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and
2. (b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 16 [Determination of disputes]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 17: Page 16, line 41, at end insert: ("( ) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Billing disputes]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 18: Page 18, line 9, at end insert: ("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may he specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 19:

Before Clause 20, insert the following new clause:

Research concerning views of customers

(" .—(1) In section 39(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases) there shall be inserted, after paragraph (b), "; and

(c) after arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results,".

(2) In section 40 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: overall performance), the words from "after" to "affected" shall be omitted from subsection (1) and the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection— (1A) The Director may only make a determination under subsection (1) (a) above after—

1. (a) consultation with public electricity suppliers and with persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected; and
2. (b) arranging for such research as the Director considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and considering the results.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Billing disputes]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 20: Page 21, line 23, at end insert: ("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 21:

Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

Research concerning views of customers

(".—(1) Section 39 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for making regulations under section 38 relating to standards of performance in the supply of water) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)— (1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results. (4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)— (bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above;".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 22:

Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

Research concerning views of customers

(".—(1) Section 96 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (procedure for regulations under section 95 relating to standards of performance in the provision of sewerage services) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (d), for "both" there shall be substituted "the summary mentioned in subsection (2) (bb) below,".

(3) The following subsection shall he inserted after subsection (1)— (1A) Before making an application to the Secretary of State under this section the Director shall arrange for such research as he considers appropriate with a view to discovering the views of a representative sample of persons likely to be affected and consider the results. (4) In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after "apply" in paragraph (b)— (bb) is accompanied by a written summary of the results of the research carried out in accordance with subsection (1A) above:".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Determination of disputes by the Director]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 23: Page 27, line 41, at end insert: ("( ) Where the Director determines any dispute under this section he shall give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Billing disputes]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24: Page 30, line 26, at end insert: ("( ) Any person determining any billing dispute in accordance with regulations under this section shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 [Inset appointments]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 24A: Page 34, line 28, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 51 [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland]:

Lord Reay moved Amendments No. 25 and 26: Page 44, line 33, leave out ("20") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 20)"). Page 44, line 35, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 53 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 27: Page 45, line 4, leave out ("25") and insert ("(Research concerning views of customers: inserted before Clause 25)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 28 to 31:

Page 47, line 23, leave out ("section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989") and insert ("section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989 (determination of disputes), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)— (1A) Any person making an order under subsection (1) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute. 11A. In section 25 of the Act of 1989").

Page 47, line 27, at end insert: ("12A. In section 39 of the Act of 1989 (electricity supply: performance in individual cases), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5)— (5A) Any person making an order under subsection (5) above shall include in the order his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").

Page 48, line 6, at end insert: ("15A. In section 38 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with water supply) the following subsection shall be added at the end— (5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").

Page 48, line 37, at end insert: ("20A. In section 95 of the Act of 1991 (standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services) the following subsection shall be added at the end— (5) Where the Director determines any dispute in accordance with regulations under this section he shall, in such manner as may be specified in the regulations, give his reasons for reaching his decision with respect to the dispute." ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Repeals]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 49, line 36, column 3, at end insert:
	("In section 39(1), the word "and" immediately before paragraph (b).
	In section 40(1), the words from "after" to "affected".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 12th March):

12.15 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

I should like to start by thanking noble Lords, particularly noble Lords opposite, for their co-operation and assistance in facilitating the progress of the Bill in the light of the curtailing of the parliamentary Session. Without it we could not have expected the Bill to reach the statute book within the timescale and in the form now arrived at.

This Bill implements the commitments we gave in the Citizen's Charter to bring the powers of all the regulators up to those of the strongest. It is an important and worthwhile Bill for the 25 million utility customers who will benefit as a result.

Standards of service and choice were central themes of the Citizen's Charter. Building on the basis laid when the utilities were privatised, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill paves the way for a real improvement in service for the regulated utility customers; and for greater choice for gas and water services customers.

As a result of the Bill all the regulators will have power to set guaranteed service standards for individuals; establish compensation schemes where individual service falls below those standards; set overall performance standards; ensure that the utilities establish and publicise complaints procedures; resolve disputes over standards; and, where the Secretary of State provides, resolve disputes over billing. In addition, the Bill opens up scope for greater competition in gas and water services.

Although we have not been able to have the usual intervals between the Committee and Report stages, and between Report and Third reading, I believe that we have had most useful debates on the details of the Bill. Important points have been raised and discussed and we have made a number of improvements to the Bill as a result—not necessarily fewer than if we had progressed the Bill at a more normal tempo. As a result of those changes, which I will not enumerate again, I am confident that we shall be returning a better Bill to another place.

I should like to address some issues which were of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The noble Lord was anxious that BT will be required to satisfy a stricter measure of performance in relation to overall standards than the energy utilities. He also questioned the arrangements for telecommunications in relation to the power of the regulator to order an operator who has breached licence conditions to remedy that breach. Ministers take such anxieties seriously and we have therefore reconsidered whether some differences in our approach to BT and the other utilities are justified.

We have looked thoroughly into the matter once again, but I must say to the noble Lord that in our view our policy is soundly based. In the case of telecommunications, the director general is responsible for overseeing a large number of operators— some 130 in all. This is in marked contrast, for example, to the position in gas where there is only one public gas supplier. So the structures of the industries are different, as are the regulatory frameworks for them as already built up through the privatisation Acts and the related licences. It is on those various frameworks that we need to build.

One other point I should mention is that, as a result of anxiety expressed in Committee about the operation of the existing telecommunications advisory committees, which represent customers' interests, I promised that I would ask the Director General of Telecommunications to consider whether a review of their operation is necessary. Your Lordships may wish to be aware that I have now done so.

This Bill exemplifies our dual approach to the utilities. Competition is the best spur to efficiency and value for money. When we privatised the utilities we sought to introduce as much scope as possible for competition. The Bill builds on that with measures to encourage further competition in gas and water. Eventually competition may develop to a point where the role of the regulator can be diminished, but, where competition is not full and effective, we need strong regulators to ensure that the interests of customers are protected and the utilities do not abuse their market dominance. The new powers the Bill gives to the regulators will enable them to carry out their role more effectively.

In closing, I should like to thank your Lordships for the constructive and useful suggestions which have resulted in the improved Bill now before the House. As a result of the Bill, customers will have more choice, more information, better standards of service and redress when standards are not met, and straightforward procedures for resolving disputes with the utilities. These are very real benefits for customers and will be welcomed by them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Reay.)

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for what he has said. We on these Benches are grateful to him for accepting that we did our utmost to make sure that the Bill passed through your Lordships' House in the agreed timespan.

The Bill has been sensibly amended and I am grateful also to the Government for their flexibility in some matters about which we felt strongly. As an improved Bill we welcome it rather more enthusiastically than perhaps we did at Second Reading. I put on record that as far as we are concerned we do not believe that, as yet, the Bill goes far enough. We would like to see it strengthened. It may be that in the course of time we shall have an opportunity to strengthen some of its provisions.

In particular, there are at present two major gaps in the Bill. First, the Gas Consumer Council is not replicated in all the other utilities covered by the Bill. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the Gas Consumer Council which has operated very effectively. We should prefer to see similar arrangements across the full range of the utilities covered by the Bill.

The second matter which has not been resolved, and which remains to be resolved by a future Parliament, is the relationship between the regulators themselves, Parliament and/or Ministers. It has been called regulating the regulators. As these regulators become more and more important in our national life, as they will if the Bill goes through and is enacted, as we hope, they should be much more responsive to Parliament or some kind of parliamentary body than they are at the moment. Having said that, I accept that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. As half a loaf we believe that this Bill should be enacted. We will support the Government in that effort.

It only remains for me to reciprocate the gratitude expressed to me by the Minister by thanking him very much for his usual courtesy in dealing with this Bill and his willingness to consider proper and rational arguments when put before him. We do not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and we wish it well.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, I too express satisfaction that this Bill will be going through. It contains much which will be of considerable value to consumers. It has been much improved by the amendments moved this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I am of the same opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that at some later stage we should like to return to the question of the Gas Consumer Council and also to the point raised in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that we should look once more at the responsibility of the regulators to Parliament or to some other supervisory body. However, that can come at a later stage. In the meantime, I am delighted that this Bill will be going through so that consumers can benefit from the new provisions.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I had no intention of intervening, but in view of what has just been said by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Ezra, perhaps I may say right away that I believe that the argument about regulating the regulators is totally misconceived. The whole point of the present system is to protect the regulator from political interference and pressure. The worst possible thing that could be done would be to subject what were intended to be independent regulators to political manoeuvring.

Lord Hacking

My Lords, those of your Lordships who have participated at each stage of the Bill, as I have, became aware at a very early stage in Committee that something was afoot. The Minister said with confidence that he expected this Bill to reach the statute book. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said he hoped that the Bill would become an Act. The Minister smiled at the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord smiled at the Minister. I believe that I collected one smile myself from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Then it became more apparent that something was afoot. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has a reputation for tabling reasoned amendments and pressing them at every stage of the Bill with lucid argument. But the noble Lord seemed to lose steam about half way through the Committee stage. Before we reached the second day of Committee the noble Lord had withdrawn 26 of his reasoned amendments.

All has now been revealed. There has been a private alliance between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. It is almost perhaps an unholy alliance. From the position of a Back Bencher one cannot think of a more unholy alliance than that of the two Front Benches gathering together to thwart the honest endeavours of noble Lords on the Back Benches.

My quarrel now is not so much with the alliance but with its result, which is that this Bill has taken a shortened course through this Parliament rather than a more considered one through the next. If there was unity between the two Front Benches, surely that unity could have produced the result of your Lordships giving much better consideration to the Bill. I have listened very carefully to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It remains my case that there is a great deal more work that could usefully have been done on the Bill, as your Lordships so often usefully perform on Bills.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? He said that there was agreement between the Front Benches. There was also agreement with the Back Benches on this side of the House and, I believe, also on the other side of the House.

Lord Hacking

My Lords, then I feel even more in the cold on the Cross-Benches. In preparation for Report stage I tabled a number of amendments. I did so because I thought they were amendments that deserved your Lordships' attention. But when it became quite plain that it was the will of this House to take the Bill through on a shortened course, I thought that the only responsible action was to withdraw those amendments, which I duly did. Indeed, those amendments had been tabled following representations that were made to me and other noble Lords by British Telecom and British Gas. I can tell your Lordships that neither of those two companies has any wish to impede the passage of this Bill.

However, I am intervening at Third Reading because I believe that it is still reasonable to ask both the Government and the Opposition—perhaps on the details of today's poll the Opposition can be described as the Government in Waiting—to continue to listen to the anxieties which have been expressed in this Bill and to keep the door open for further revision. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicated that if the Opposition become the Government, they would look again at the Bill for certain reasons concerned with strengthening the Bill.

I wrote to the Minister about my anxieties after Committee stage and he has been kind enough to answer some of them in his Third Reading speech. I shall merely put in a marker now and then wish the Bill well as it leaves your Lordships' House. Placed in the marker is, first, the concern that the new regulatory scheme falls outside the established regulatory licensing scheme that exists for all four of the utility industries. On that point, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recalls, he gave me support in Committee. That is perhaps a matter which he may particularly wish to consider if his party returns to government.

Perhaps I may add a further point because I mentioned it to the Minister. There is the position of British Gas and the other utility companies that, as the competition element of each of these industries increases, they are in the rather strange position of not having the right to seek reference to the MMC while the utility directors can. That is merely an additional point. The Minister referred in his speech to the reasonable test as regards the standards of performance. Noble Lords will recall from Committee stage that the position is this: the electricity and gas industries are entitled to the reasonable test while the water and telecommunications industries are not. The case here is that that is simply unfair. Even though there may be different situations in which each of these industries operate, it is still an uneven playing field.

We can consider the 1987 hurricane and perhaps a 1994 hurricane where electricity wires are carried over the same piece of ground as the telephone wires, and where the gas is being carried in pipes underneath that ground, and water too. If the hurricane should hit ferociously at that point on our land all those supplies could be damaged. However, as regards only two of them—namely, electricity and gas —can they fend off suits from their customers whose supplies have been cut off? It is for the electricity and gas industries just to take every reasonable step. The hurricane could not have been foreseen. Why should the telecommunications industry be penalised?

There are three points that I shall now make shortly. The first is on the enforcement of compliance orders. Your Lordships may recall that there was a discretion open to the directors for all the industries except the gas industry when the offending party has taken steps to put the breach right. The second concern is the load on directors of the new quasi-judicial role and the absence of any appeal in arbitration proceedings. That was advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Finally, there is the particular concern of British Gas with the removal of the tariff thresholds without at the same time releasing it from its statutory obligation to provide up to 25,000 therms of gas per annum to its suppliers. That is not parity; that is not fair. It is for all those reasons that I ask both political parties, whoever may be in government after this general election, to keep their minds open.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. Could he amend "both" political parties?

Lord Hacking

All political parties. I am delighted to hear that I have another audience. I ask that "all" political parties, whichever comes back to power and in whatever form of alliance—perhaps we are open to a few surprises on that —keep their minds open. For those reasons I do not press the matter at this stage. I wish the Bill well for its Third Reading but better still for further consideration at another time.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of encouraging this Bill on its way at Third Reading. I should also like to thank the Minister and in particular his staff for the very efficient and prompt way in which they have dealt with all the points that I raised in Committee. Had they been unable to satisfy me on those points I should certainly have wanted to bring them back at Report stage. But they have dealt with them expeditiously and well and I have received excellent letters covering those points. Therefore the Gas Consumers Council is very satisfied with the answers given at Committee stage.

The other replies have come since, both from the noble Lord himself and his department and also from Offer. They have done what was required to reassure the electricity industry and, I believe, others as to the billing procedures and meter disputes which apply to gas as much as to electricity—the matter of security of supply and safety of meters. I am most grateful for that.

The point about regulating the regulators, which was the subject of an amendment which I brought forward, is very interesting. But I am a great believer in giving people an opportunity to put their own house in order first. It may be that the very fact that this Bill has come in this way—the slightly telescoped form now—means that there will be an opportunity to see that it will not prove necessary. In which case my noble friend Lord Cockfield will be only too pleased. Certainly points of concern were raised and this gives us an opportunity to take the first dose of medicine —whether it is our first dose of medicine or half a dose —and see whether we need more. Therefore I welcome the Bill in that way.

I cannot support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that the Back-Benchers have been thwarted. The Back-Benchers have been treated very well in this matter. In fact I wish we had some way in this House and in the other place of making all Bills process through as efficiently as this one has. When it is seen how rapidly we have achieved the real needs in this Bill compared with the time that we spend in going into all sorts of impossible and impractical amendments, as well as the very necessary and important ones, it gives us an idea of how we could save a little time in the future. With that, I wish the Bill every success.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I am sure that my officials will have heard with pleasure the words spoken by my noble friend. I am grateful for what she said. I am also pleased that she made the point that the opinions of Back-Benchers have been listened to during the course of the debate. I strongly believe that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his kind words. Beyond that there is nothing that I can usefully add. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Reay.)

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.