---

Energy Bill

I certainly see the case for the first paragraph of the amendment. There is clearly an anomaly. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said, if gas suppliers and shippers can be compensated for stranded assets—that is, those that must be replaced before their life has expired—that would be something. However, the people who will do this are described as the ““transporters””: those who transport the gas from the suppliers to the consumers. If the clause is to have the effect that the Government intend, that is an important amendment. While I understand the case made for the second paragraph, I have already indicated that I dislike the regional franchise model on the whole. There may be some initial cost savings, but anything that smacks of a regional monopoly—which it would—would be a recipe for increasing slackness and a lack of proper competitive pressures. I accept that it may still be a model, in which case a paragraph is probably necessary in order not to rule it out. In suggesting, therefore, that the Government might be wise to accept the second paragraph, I would not like it to be thought that I am automatically supporting a regional franchise model. There may be some difficulties with that.