---

Energy Bill

This is a slightly strange procedure because the amendment that has been moved will have to be withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. In the mean time, at the express request of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, I shall fulfil the summing-up role. I will do so very briefly. There is some puzzlement about whether what is being proposed is a fundamental change or not. I saw it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as an evolutionary change. I was therefore intrigued to hear the Minister say in reply that one of the things that the Government are doing is bringing forward proposals shortly about how the regulatory regime might evolve. One is tempted to ask whether we are going to have an evolved regime only if the Government have thought about it because they are not prepared to take it from anyone else. That would figure on the basis of past experience. I will not cite some of the examples, but we have certainly had them. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, was absolutely right to say that once again the Government are confusing ends and means. If we have, as we now do, climate change legislation on the statute book, is it really so fundamental and revolutionary to ask, as we do in the amendment, that the third principle be that, "““the reference to a sustainable system of electricity supply is a reference to the delivery of that system in a manner that, taken as a whole … in particular by contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions within the meaning of the Climate Change Act 2008””?" Is it not therefore unreal to suggest that Ofgem should pay it no regard, or should only ““have to regard to”” it, or be subject to guidance? If one is to evolve, to use the Minister’s word, how the regulatory regime may develop, and if we are shortly to see proposals, I do not see any difference in this. The Minister has erected a dragon for us to tilt at: there is no way that we can achieve it. On one thing, however, the Minister is absolutely right: this issue will come back. It remains to be seen whether the amendment will be supported on all sides of the House, but I suspect that the Government may find themselves with an amendment that has happened twice in the past, with amendments I tabled during the passage of the Utilities Act 2000 and the Energy Act 2004, which I moved, which were resisted, were passed by the House of Lords and were ultimately accepted in the other place. This may be a third example. On the basis of the Minister’s arguments, however, I remain completely unconvinced. What we propose is attuned to public and parliamentary expectations. There are certainly those in the industry who fully recognise that this must be done. Ofgem has said, as I quoted, that statutory duties are a matter for Parliament. Parliament now has an opportunity to achieve this aim and, when we come to debate this at a later stage, we will find that that is what Parliament wishes to do.