HL Deb 05 July 2000 vol 614 cc1556-67

(" . In making an order and other arrangements under sections 32, 32A, 32B and 32C of the 1989 Act the Secretary of State may also make provision for—

  1. (a) electricity generated by any form of combined heat and power stations:
  2. (b) electricity generated by approved systems of clean coal technology.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the renewables obligation to include combined heat and power and clean coal technology. Perhaps I may deal first with combined heat and power. The Government's support for that way of making better use of the electricity generating capacity in the country is well known. They have set an objective, as they have for renewables, for the year 2010. In discussions I have had with the noble Lord since Committee stage he has assured me that CHP will be included in the energy efficiency obligations which are dealt with in Clauses 70 and 99. That is one kind of obligation contained within this Bill. I am quite satisfied about that.

However, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that CHP would come into the other kind of obligation, the renewables provision, which imposes an obligation on suppliers to take certain types of electricity. As regards renewables, my proposal is that it should be extended to combined heat and power. That is the simple proposition that I make. In view of the Government's known support for CHP, I believe that it should come into both sorts of obligations contained in this Bill as regards the energy efficiency obligation and the proposed extension of the renewables obligation. That is the proposition as regards combined heat and power.

The proposition as regards clean coal technology we touched on earlier. We ought to be moving in the direction of having plant operating on clean coal technology systems in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is one of a number who have been fighting the battle for years. We need to create a climate in which that type of activity can be stimulated.

As I mentioned at Committee stage, I tried some years ago to persuade the government to extend the non-fossil fuel obligation to include clean coal technology. That was on the point of being agreed, but then it failed. It was a Private Member's Bill and these days the fate of such a Bill is uncertain. It is another way in which the creation of this type of plant could be brought about. If there were an obligation to take a proportion of electricity produced by clean coal technology, then we would get the plant to produce it. There is not a situation at present in which one would put money into the venture because, on a straight comparison with other forms of energy generation, it would be too expensive. And so it is with regard to renewables. That is the whole reason for the renewables obligation. Therefore, I strongly propose—I hope that it will gain support—that the renewables obligation be extended both to combined heat and power and to clean coal technology. I beg to move.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The logic of the case for combined heat and power is clear. It is both sensible and economic. There are also double benefits from combustion.

So far as concerns clean coal technology, we debated this matter earlier and I certainly do not wish to delay the House. I accept that the Government recognise that clean coal technology is desirable and that there could be a substantial international market for its development. The point I wish to make is that, if our mining engineering and related industries are to take advantage of that opportunity, there has to be a home base of a sufficient size to provide the demonstrations required to attract an international audience.

In her admirable speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was sweepingly condemnatory of fossil fuels. The raw consumption of fossil fuels which emit noxious gases must come to an end. But, whatever we do, the world will continue to burn vast quantities of coal. If we were to shut down all our pits and coal-fired power stations tomorrow, it would make very little difference to the total amount of coal which will be burnt internationally. It is therefore highly desirable for a number of countries to ensure that clean coal technology is supported not only at its research stage but at its development stage, in order to demonstrate to the world that the planet need not continue to be polluted on the scale that it inevitably will be if leads are not taken.

Britain is in a position to give a lead. I hope that the Government will take a favourable view of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been advancing for a very long time, with the support of a number of my noble friends, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is a notable example. I hope that the Government will recognise that we have an international opportunity. We may also be able to respond to an international obligation in a material and sensible way if the views expressed in the amendment are considered sympathetically.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, my name has been mentioned twice in connection with this amendment, which I strongly support. The arguments need not be repeated; the onus is now on the Government to disprove the case for clean coal technology, which has been made for a number of years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others for the time that they have taken in discussions with me and my officials between Committee stage and now. The meeting we had last Thursday—which ended with us walking out and leaving his advisers talking to DTI officials—was particularly helpful. It provided more light than we are often able to achieve across the Floor of the House. As a result of those meetings, I have twice written to the noble Lord: once on combined heat and power on 29th June, and once on clean coal on 3rd July. Those letters are in the Library of the House.

Let me restate what I said in the letter on combined heat and power. I can confirm that the Bill already contains a power which would allow the Secretary of State to set a specific obligation for combined heat and power if he wished. That is what subsection (a) of the noble Lord's amendment would provide. This is by virtue of new Section 41A(5)(b) as introduced by Clause 70 of the Bill, which applies to electricity—if that is difficult to find, it is on page 73, line 39—and there is a gas equivalent under Clause 99.

This subsection provides that the Secretary of State may specify the action which qualifies for the purpose of meeting an energy efficiency target. The effect of this is that he could set an obligation for requiring suppliers to meet energy efficiency targets and specify that the only way of meeting the targets is by installing or otherwise procuring CHP. New Section 41 A(9), and its gas equivalent, removes any possible doubt about CHP being able to count towards targets in this way. But I have to say again that we do not intend to use the powers in this way. This is because we are already putting in place an extensive range of measures in favour of CHP, which I explained in Committee and in my letter.

I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on 3rd July to explain the context of the Government's policies for clean coal. I can confirm the main points of what I said. The Government's policy with regard to the coal industry should be seen in the context of the Government's central energy policy objective to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Our October 1998 White Paper, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, highlighted the need for an acceptable level of diversity and saw coal as a main contributor to diversity of UK electricity production into the foreseeable future. That is why the Government were so concerned that distortions in the electricity market were pushing out existing coal-fired plant at the expense of new gas build and undertook a programme of reform to remove those distortions.

That programme will be complete with the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements later this year. At that point we will be able to relax the stricter consents policy for new gas-fired power stations that we introduced to safeguard diversity while the reforms were undertaken. We recognise that the restructuring of the market and the lifting of the stricter consents policy will be a challenge for the UK coal industry, and we are in discussion with the European Commission about a programme of state aid to help the industry through this period of restructuring.

The rationale for government support for cleaner coal technology R&D fits firmly within this policy framework. A key purpose of the R&D programme is to identify the extent to which all the extensive coal resources of the UK can be used as a source of energy in the future. Both coal bed methane and underground coal gasification technology offer some promise to contribute to future energy supply in the longer term if they can be successfully developed commercially on a large scale.

A further element of the rationale of the programme is the contribution that cleaner coal technology would make towards achieving global environmental goals as part of the climate change programme. My noble friend Lord Hardy is right about that. In the UK, the availability of gas as a fuel for electricity generation means that clean coal does not offer environmental advantages other than over existing coal capacity. Any clean coal plant would probably displace existing coal plant, at some cost and without substantial efficiency gain.

However, coal used for electricity generation is expected to grow substantially in developing countries and the efficiency gains to be derived from improvements to existing coal plant and the adoption of new advanced cleaner coal technology plant is expected to make a substantial difference to emissions at the global level, again a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. The R&D programme will underpin substantial export opportunities, with business and employment benefits for UK companies.

But we do not see the need for support for demonstration projects as a priority at present. There are a number of commercially proven cleaner coal technologies available from a number of suppliers, both in the UK and overseas. They do not need to be demonstrated again on a commercial scale and subsidised by the taxpayer. Our funds are best channelled to R&D for more advanced technologies capable of offering substantial efficiency and environmental benefits.

However, the Foresight Task Force identified a case for demonstration after about 2005, and the Government undertook in their October 1998 White Paper to re-examine the position in about three years' time. We shall honour that commitment and take account of all the points that have been raised in debate, including the potential export benefits.

I trust that I have given a sufficiently clear statement of the Government's position on the issues of combined heat and power and clean coal to enable the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not to press his amendments.

Lord Ezra

I thank the noble Lord for that full statement, which he sent me in writing earlier. So far as concerns CHP, I am pleased that he has confirmed that the Government have a reserved power to introduce specific obligations. It was never my intention to press for such obligations to be imposed at the present time. Obviously the position will remain under review, and if at any time it should be desirable for such obligations to be imposed, no doubt we shall exert suitable pressure on the Government to do so. I am satisfied with the CHP position as the Minister has explained it.

However, we part company on the issue of clean coal technology. The Government fully support the concept. They fully recognise the global implications. They support further investment. But, unfortunately, what they will not do is support—what those of us who feel strongly about clean coal technology support—the construction of demonstration plants. Every attempt made so far to bring that forward has failed. We now have a date of 2005 when this matter might be reexamined. I do not find that very satisfying. Nonetheless, at this stage I do not wish to press the point any further. We may come back to it. We certainly will on different occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66 [Modification and abolition of fossil fuel levy]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63: Page 68, line 43, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 63 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 67 [Supplementary]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 64: Page 69, line 29, leave out from ("cost") to ("referred") in line 30.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 [Help for disadvantaged groups of electricity customers]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 65: Page 71, line 43, after ("of") insert ("the conditions of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 70 [Energy efficiency requirements for electricity distributors and suppliers]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66: Page 73, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 28 and insert— ("() An order under this section may specify criteria by reference to which the Authority is to determine energy efficiency targets for the electricity distributors or electricity suppliers on whom obligations are imposed by the order. () The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out their respective functions under this section in the manner he or it considers is best calculated to ensure").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 88, 89 and 91. Although there are many words in these amendments, I can assure the House that they make only small, important, changes to the energy efficiency provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66 and 88 do two things. First, they allow the Secretary of State to tell the authority what criteria to use in splitting up the obligations into separate targets for individual suppliers. That means that, rather than leaving it to its discretion, the Secretary of State could tell the authority that individual suppliers should be given a target in proportion to their market share. He could also specify how market share was to be calculated. The Government will be consulting further on all these issues before making orders under the provisions.

Secondly, consistent with the other provisions of the Bill, they make it clear that the duty to avoid distorting competition is a duty that is to be exercised in the judgment of the Secretary of State or the authority. At present the clauses are silent on the issue of whose judgment is involved.

Amendments Nos. 67 and 89 make it clear that trading of obligations can take place between gas and electricity obligations holders rather than simply among gas obligation holders on the one hand and electricity holders on the other. That flexibility to trade obligations between gas and electricity is essential to the Government's objective to provide scope for participants in the market to develop the most cost-effective mechanisms for meeting the Government's energy efficiency obligations.

The same objective gives rise to Amendment No. 91. That provides a power so that the Secretary of State can set one global energy efficiency target that can then be applied separately under the separate energy efficiency provisions for gas and electricity. He can provide for the authority to apportion the global target between gas and electricity and he can specify to the authority how that division is to be made. The reason we have had to introduce a separate order-making power to achieve this arises from the structure of the Bill. In general, the Bill works by amending the existing gas and electricity legislation. This is the case for the energy efficiency provisions. Therefore, in order to have the provision which links the separate gas and electricity legislation it is necessary for it to be a free-standing provision of the Bill. That is what we have done. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No. 67: Page 74, line 34, after ("supplier") insert ("or to a gas transporter or gas supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986)")

1986 c. 44.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 74 [Gas licence conditions]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68: Page 77, line 36, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Gas transporters]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 69: Page 78, line 3, leave out subsection (1).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 74. With regard to Amendment No. 74, the words, it considers it appropriate to do so". in Clause 77 provide an enormously wide discretion when one considers the need for the 20 to 25-year investment security required by independent public gas transporters. Independent public gas transporters have only limited opportunities to legally cross-subsidise. If a project fails to meet its target return because its infrastructure has been bypassed by a competitor, the shortfall cannot readily be recovered from elsewhere without breaching licence obligations.

The only remedy would be to raise prices to the domestic consumers already connected at the site. That cuts directly across the objectives of independent public gas transporters, which have been to achieve lower prices on individual developments through local scale economies. It would also put the authority in breach of its proposed duty to protect the interests of consumers and, if prices were not increased, its current duty under Section 4 of the Gas Act to ensure that licensees can finance the carrying on of their activities.

Since independent public gas transporters only win the project following an intensely competitive bid process, the outcome could be that the most efficient pipeline operators are punished at the expense of the least efficient. Alternatively, the outcome could be that consumers bear the brunt. Given the enormous width of the clause, it is difficult currently to predict how the discretion might be exercised.

An independent public gas transporter could win a development by being the most efficient in the bid process but then lose most of the connections, not through its own lack of efficiency, but because of price distortions generally. Given the current duty under Section 9 of the Gas Act for economy and efficiency, this gives perverse incentives.

The problem is exacerbated with investment already sunk by independent public gas transporters under the current competitive regime. Since the costs are sunk—they could hardly pull up the pipes—the new legislation will have a retrospective effect.

I turn to the drafting. The amendment seeks to preserve the unfettered discretion which the authority must have by law. It introduces, however, a device whereby the discretion may be exercised in a balanced and informed way by reference to guidelines. I beg to move.

7.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, was the noble Baroness speaking only to Amendments Nos. 69 and 74 and not to the other amendments in the group?

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I was perhaps a little unclear. My intention was not to move Amendments Nos. 69 to 73, but I thought that I had to move Amendment No. 69 in order to get to Amendment No. 74. So I have spoken to Amendment No. 74.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. It does not make life any easier for me but I shall do my best. In order to make my response to Amendment No. 74 comprehensible, I have to refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 69 to 75, which refer to Clause 76. It is important to establish that what we are doing in this part of the Bill is to remove the geographic exclusivity for gas transporters. At the moment they have licensed areas and no one else is allowed to intervene in their licensed areas. We are saying that competition has to have force and that with various provisos set out in these clauses they can no longer have that exclusivity. Clearly, gas transporters do not like that. They would like to maintain the monopoly position that they have had in their various areas. But we think that it is right to have the objective of ending geographic exclusivity by removing the requirement that public gas transporters' licences may not include areas which are specified in the licensing of other public gas transporters. They object because it increases competition. We hope that it will reduce the prices that they can charge. Incumbent monopolies do not like this kind of thing, but we want consumers to benefit from increased competition. I am a little surprised that the Opposition are seeking to challenge any part of this thoroughly capitalist procedure.

I turn to Amendment No. 74. The clause as drafted is flexible enough to allow the authority to respond to changing circumstances. If the amendment were to be accepted, that flexibility would disappear. I think that giving the authority flexibility to use its judgment, and giving it the ability to protect consumers from being overcharged by incumbents, is a good policy aim. I commend our proposals to the House and I oppose Amendment No. 74.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's response to Amendment No. 74. I hear what he has had to say with regard to competition and flexibility. However, there is a need to consider the viability of the independent public gas transporters. In order to be in business, they have to invest for a long period. Clause 77 as it stands gives an enormously wide discretion to the authority which they feel is unreasonable.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I realise that I failed to reply to an important point made by the noble Baroness in introducing Amendment No. 74. I apologise for that. She said that the phrase, by the Authority where it considers it appropriate", is too broad. That is for a very good reason. We expect the companies to protect their investments, but we expect them to protect their investments by using contracts. In our view, the authority should become involved only when there are disputes.

I failed to reply to another point raised by the noble Baroness, for which again I apologise. She said that the Bill is retrospective because the pipes are already in the ground. Clause 77 deals with pipes already in the ground. The discretion which the noble Baroness criticised includes the ability of the authority to allow transporters to place conditions on consent which protect their investment if it thinks that it is in the interests of consumers. I think that we have thought this out properly. We have thought about the short-term position, where people have investments and where the threat is that new people can come in, and we have thought about the long-term interests of consumers and the industry.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I hear what the Minister has had to say. We have had a good deal of consultation with the industry on this point. The industry does not feel that what the Minister has said thus far has given it enough assurance. On that basis, when we reach Amendment No. 74, I should like to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 69.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]

Clause 77 [Restriction on use of certain pipe-lines for providing a supply of gas]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 74: Page 79, line 3, at end insert ("having regard to any guidelines drawn up by the Authority from time to time in consultation with gas transporters and to the provisions of section 7(8)(b)").

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

7.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 4
Contents
Attlee, E. Kimball, L.
Blatch, B. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Bridgeman, V. Lucas, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller]
Buscombe, B. Lyell, L.
Byford, B. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Marlesford, L.
Craigavon, V. Monro of Langholm, L.
Denham, L. Montrose, D.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E. Northbrook, L.
Fookes, B. Norton of Louth, L.
Glenarthur, L. Renton, L.
Glentoran, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Hanham, B. Seccombe, B.
Haslam, L. Taylor of Warwick, L.
Henley, L. [Teller] Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Home., E. Waddington, L.
Hooper, B. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Ahmed, L. Howells of St. Davids, B.
Amos, B. Hoyle, L.
Andrews, B. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Bach, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Barker, B. Islwyn, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Judd, L.
Berkeley, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Billingham, B. Layard, L.
Blackstone, B. Lea of Crondall, L.
Borrie, L. Lockwood, B.
Bragg, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Brett, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Carter, L.[Teller] MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Chandos, V. Mar and Kellie, E.
Christopher, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Miller of Chilthome Domer, B
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Molloy, L.
Crawley, B. Nicol, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L. Parekh, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Patel of Blackburn, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Desai, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Donoughue, L. Redesdale, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Dubs, L. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Elder, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Ezra, L. Shepherd, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Simon. V.
Filkin, L. Smith of Leigh, L.
Gale, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Gilbert, L. Thornton, B.
Goldsmith, L. Tomlinson, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Tordoff, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Grenfell, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Hamwee, B. Whitty, L.
Hardy of Wath, L. Wilkins, B.
Harris of Haringey, L. Winston, L.
Harrison, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.3 p.m.

Clause 78 [Construction of pipe-lines by gas transporters]:

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Clause 79 [Duty to facilitate competition]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76: Page 80, line 16, leave out subsection (5).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 84 [The gas code]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78: Page 86, line 13, leave out from ("installed") to end of line 15 and insert ("by an authorised supplier on any premises shall not be used to recover any sum other than a sum owing to an authorised supplier in respect of the supply of gas to those premises or the provision of the meter.""). Page 86, line 28. at end insert— ("(4) In paragraph 23(2), for paragraph (c) there is substituted— (c) exercising a power conferred by paragraph 3(5) or 7(3)(a) (and testing gas fittings, and making any adjustments required for their safe operation, after the exercise of the power)."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 88 [Altering activities requiring gas licence]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79: Page 94, line 17, at end insert (; and () any advice given by the Health and Safety Commission under section 4A (advice about health and safety in relation to gas)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80: Page 100, line 6, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ("(6) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 95 [Financial penalties]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81: Page 102, line 3, at end insert— ("(6A) No penalty imposed by the Authority under this section may exceed 10 per cent. of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State). (6B) An Order under subsection (6A) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Borrie, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 98 [Help for disadvantaged groups of gas customers]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 87: Page 108, line 5, leave out ("persons who supply gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers"). Page 108, line 11, leave out from ("by") to ("provision") in line 15 and insert ("authorised shippers or authorised transporters (as well as by suppliers); and (b) in relation to charges payable to suppliers,"). Page 108, line 27, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters"). Page 109, line 12, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters"). Page 109, line 21, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters"). Page 109, line 26, at end insert— ("(7) In this section and section 4IA "authorised shipper" means a person authorised by a licence or exemption to arrange with any gas transporter for gas to be introduced into, conveyed by means of, or taken out of a pipe-line system operated by that transporter."").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 99 [Energy efficiency requirements fir gas transporters and suppliers]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89: Page 109, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 8 on page 110 and insert— ("() An order under this section may specify criteria by reference to which the Authority is to determine energy efficiency targets for the gas transporters and gas suppliers on whom obligations are imposed by the order. () The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out their respective functions under this section in the manner he or it considers is best calculated to ensure"). Page 111, line 14, after ("supplier") insert ("or to an electricity distributor or electricity supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Electricity Act 1989)")

1989 c. 29.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 102 [Maximum prices for reselling gas]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 90: Page 114, line 17, leave out from ("supplier"") to end of line 20.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91: Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause—