---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 76A: 76A: After Clause 91, insert the following new Clause— ““Adaptation of role of OFT in initial investigations and report (1) In section 44(3)(b) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (initial report by OFT in public interest cases must include summary of representation about public interest considerations) for the words ““(other than a media public interest consideration)”” substitute ““(other than a media or an energy public interest consideration)””. (2) After section 44(5A) of that Act insert— ““(5B) The report may, in particular, contain a summary of any representations about the case which have been received by the OFT and which relate to any energy public interest consideration mentioned in the intervention notice concerned and which is or may be relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision as to whether to make a reference under section 45.”” (3) After section 44(7) of that Act insert— ““(8) In this Part ““energy public interest consideration”” means any consideration which, at the time of the giving of the intervention notice concerned— (a) is specified in section 58(2D); or (b) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is concerned with energy and ought to be specified in section 58. (4) After section 44A of that Act insert— ““44B Additional investigation and report by OFGEM; energy acquisitions, mergers or takeovers (1) Subsection (2) applies where— (a) the Secretary of State has given an intervention notice in relation to a relevant acquisition, merger or takeover situation; and (b) the intervention notice mentions any energy public interest consideration. (2) OFGEM shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may require, give a report to the Secretary of State on the effect of the consideration or considerations concerned on the case. (3) The report shall contain— (a) advice and recommendations on any energy public interest consideration mentioned in the intervention notice concerned and which is or may be relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision as to whether to make a reference under section 45; and (b) a summary of any representations about the case which have been received by OFGEM and which relate to any such consideration. (4) OFGEM’s advice shall cover the issues of— (a) financial liability, (b) transparency, and (c) security of supply. (5) OFGEM shall carry out such investigations as they consider appropriate for the purposes of producing a report under this section.”””” The noble Lord said: I point to the irony that at this late hour and right at the end of the Committee stage of this Bill we are discussing energy security. I cannot think of a more important issue—I am sure there are more important issues, but I am not aware of one. I have had the benefit of two very good and constructive discussions with the Bill team and, to an extent, they were quite reassuring. By the middle of last week, I was very reassured, until I read a very good speech by the Prime Minister given last Thursday to the low carbon economy summit. Early on in the speech, which I shall précis, he said, "““let me set out for you our strategy to build Low Carbon Britain. Our first priority is to provide … competitive markets and an entrepreneurial, pro-business culture. … we will never put these at risk””." I would infinitely have preferred it had he made it clear that his first priority was security of supply and control over our energy destiny. It seems to me that our business credentials could well have been a perfectly adequate second priority. This lies at the heart of the matter. I am sad to say that in the past 25 years—not exclusively the fault of this Government—Britain has drifted more and more towards being an entrepot nation, particularly London. I am a film producer, so I think I am allowed to conjure up romantic visions of old black and white films, such as ““Macao”” and the Zanzibar films, where dodgy people were able to do dodgy deals in a dodgy environment and where the wink and the nod increasingly became the culture of the hour. That troubles me. We are moving towards an assumption that if it is a good deal, if it is good business and if you do not look too carefully at who is doing that business, it is okay. I submit, in the case of energy security, that it is anything but okay—hence my proposed amendment. The amendment is reasonably complicated, but it does the job. The Bill team and I have discussed it and it is a competent amendment. I draw the Committee’s attention to proposed new Section 44B(2): "““OFGEM shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may require, give a report to the Secretary of State on the effect of the consideration or considerations concerned on the case””." The case would be the takeover, merger or acquisition of one of our significant energy interests. The amendment continues with the words ““The report shall contain”” and it talks about that. Proposed new Section 44B(4) states: "““OFGEM’s advice shall cover the issues of—""(a) financial liability””," which is the deal entered into, where the money comes from and on what terms; "““(b) transparency””," which is the governance of the acquiring corporation or company; and, "““(c) security of supply””." I ask the Government to come up with reasons why one would not want that information. Why on earth would a significant transaction take place in the energy sector without that information being on the public record: the transparency of the organisation concerned; where the money comes from; what the terms are; and what security of supply we in the UK can expect as a result of that transaction? I want to add to my concerns. Much of the thrust of my argument was contained in my speech at Second Reading on 21 May at cols. 1948 to 1501. In it I quoted our current Prime Minister in 1989 and again in 1991 saying, "““there has been very little attempt to stand up for ordinary people against the vested interests of business and vast corporations””." In a subsequent speech he said that the current Government, "““would appease the vested interests of their friends in the private sector before advancing the public interest which it is their duty to uphold””.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/91; col. 754.]" All I am arguing here is that it is an absolute duty to uphold the public interest. The public interest will be best upheld by the incorporation of the type of amendment that I am suggesting here. I find it very difficult to take on board the argument that the situation is already well covered and that the nation is already absolutely secure when it is clear that all the countries with which we would normally associate ourselves—the democratic nations of western Europe and, most particularly, the United States—would not countenance the possibility of a portion of their energy supplies being owned and operated by companies with which they did not in any way, shape or form fully conform. That is particularly true of the United States, a nation that we continually seem to hold up as the apex of our economic ambitions. America would not dream of allowing a foreign company or corporation to own any of its energy supplies. We know that; the Americans make no bones about it. Why have we decided on a policy that is so entirely different? I beg to move.