asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I had indicated that we aimed to publish the consultation paper on the management of radioactive waste in the spring of this year. However, drafting has proved more complicated than expected. The paper will be published as soon as possible.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The noble Lord will recall that in response to the same Question in March of this year he said:

"we are talking about the spring, and spring it will be".—[Official Report. 16/3/00; col. 1680.]

Spring it manifestly is not, whatever the weather may suggest. Having failed on one promise, I hope that the Minister can be a little more specific today. I look forward to a more definitive date. Is the Minister aware that it is now 16 months since the Select Committee published its report and no action has been taken by the Government, other than a rather flimsy response? Is the noble Lord also aware that 16 months was the time taken by the Select Committee, with its meagre resources, to take oral and written evidence, to visit installations and to consider, write and publish its report? Is that not an unflattering comparison with government activity over the same period? Finally, does the Minister, on behalf of the Government, endorse the following comment in the report:

"The long time-scales involved might be thought to be a reason for postponing decisions. The contrary is the case"?

We went on to spell out the reasons why the contrary was the case.

My Lords, the fact that we need to take decisions which affect the long term is the reason why the Government must get the consultation paper right in the first instance. One of the matters to which the Select Committee draws attention is the need to ensure that there is public support for whatever policy we adopt. Clearly, the consultation paper is part of the strategy to gain public support for whatever solution to this very serious problem eventually emerges. The Government have taken significantly longer than they intended. As I indicated last time the matter was before the House, that underlines the complexity of the issue. I am afraid that I cannot give a definitive date. Spring has indeed gone, and we doubt whether summer is far behind. Nevertheless, we shall take a little more time before we produce the consultation paper. I have made a mistake before and I do not intend to repeat it. This has proved to be a very complex task. I hope that the noble Lord and other members of the Select Committee who carried out this work accept that the Government are making their best efforts in this matter.

My Lords, the Minister appears to give a very thin reply to the reasonable Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. Is it too much to hope that the army of draftsmen who are employed in producing loads and loads of rubbish from government sources could be better employed simply responding slightly more quickly than has proved possible?

My Lords, the Government did respond to the report of the Select Committee, albeit the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, believes that that response was not entirely adequate. It is, therefore, not a question of discourtesy to the Select Committee. The next stage is consultation with the public and the interests involved on what is a very serious issue. Decisions taken today in this matter will affect the position 50 years ahead and beyond.

My Lords, the Select Committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, presided made a number of very specific recommendations. Some of those recommendations will require further consideration; others could, I believe, be acted upon by the Government quite quickly. Can the Minister indicate the reaction of the Government to the view of the Select Committee that the present management of nuclear waste is fragmented and should be better coordinated? Can that not be done before publication of the considered opinion of the Government on the longer-term treatment of this problem?

My Lords, we noted and took into account the comments on the structure of the management of nuclear waste in this country. We did not entirely agree with the Select Committee's solution. We now consider that that issue, together with the other policy issue, should be covered in the consultation document. We shall discuss those issues in that context.

My Lords, is not the production of less nuclear waste one fairly simply solution? I should like to think that it is not excluded from discussions.

My Lords, clearly significant decisions have to be made on the future of the nuclear industry and the role nuclear power plays in meeting our energy requirements and those of the rest of the world. However, the fact remains that were there to be no further nuclear generation there is already substantial waste which will continue to require management and storage. Even were my noble friend's policy to be adopted, we should still require an effective waste management policy.

My Lords, did not Mr Meacher himself say shortly after the last election that it would be irresponsible to leave this problem to be dealt with by future generations? How much longer shall we have to wait before his welcome statement will be implemented? Alternatively, has the Prime Minister come to the conclusion that there are no votes in the matter and it will have to wait until after the next election?

My Lords, it is too serious an issue for remarks like that to be made in this House. The Government take the issue seriously. To refer to decisions by future generations when we are talking about taking a few months to get the first stage of the process right is not appropriate.

My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on the complexities to which he referred? Are they of a technical nature? Can he give the House some hint about what they consist of?

My Lords, the report covers a significant number of different aspects of the management of waste: the structure of management—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that—the future of plutonium, policy on different levels of waste; treatment of military wastes; waste substitution; and a number of other issues all of which have substantial degrees of complexity. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord will have to await the consultation paper.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government produce two important resources for the general population travelling abroad. Health Advice for Travellers contains essential information about avoiding health risks, including HIV/AIDS, anywhere in the world. Travel Safe provides specific advice on how to avoid HIV infection. The sexual health and HIV strategy currently being developed is reviewing HIV/AIDS health promotion information needs.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Does she agree that in the United Kingdom people are largely unaware of the extent of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa? Therefore the forthcoming international conference should be widely publicised.

Does the noble Baroness also agree that since drug treatment is not affordable in many countries of sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception, I think, of Uganda, international fund-raising measures along the lines of famine relief should be started and public awareness raised?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a lack of awareness of the extent of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. There have been recent programmes on television and radio. Those may be associated with the fact that the international conference on HIV/AIDS is taking place now in Durban. We have to ensure that that interest is sustained. I have been surprised that press coverage refers to the HIV/AIDS epidemic as though we have only just learnt about it. It has been continuing for a considerable time. It is important to ensure that the press do not lose interest.

Affordability is only one issue with regard to drugs treatment particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to ensure that the health systems are in place which will assist with that treatment being used in the appropriate way.

Raising money in the way that we do with respect to famine relief is led by NGOs. I am sure that NGOs which wish to start such a campaign would be widely supported.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work done by her department, especially as regards research on a vaccine against the AIDS virus.

Does the noble Baroness agree that AIDS is now on a scale comparable only with the great plague in the Middle Ages? It is wiping out up to one in four adults in many African countries, including South Africa and Zimbabwe. Will the Minister consider whether the matter is now so serious that it should be raised at the highest international levels, such as the G7 and the Commonwealth Ministers Meeting, so that a strategy can be devised in which pharmaceutical companies, governments and the Churches can all take part in an effective strategy?

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness. Conflict and AIDS are the two issues which have the biggest negative impact in sub-Saharan Africa. The Department for International Development has allocated £l4 million towards the international AIDS vaccine. We cannot be specific about when there might be a breakthrough but we hope that there will be a breakthrough of some kind in the next live years or so. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to ensure that there is a coordinated international response to this matter. It is important that it is raised and discussed and that some kind of implementation strategy is agreed at the highest levels.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that UNICEF has just announced that over 11 million children in Africa and 13 million world-wide are orphaned as a result of AIDS? Indeed, there will be many more. Can she tell the House whether there are any plans for us to help with that terrible situation?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that the number of children orphaned as a result of HIV/AIDS is growing, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. We have ensured that AIDS-related issues, including that of orphans, are integral to the work being done in our development programmes in sub-Saharan Africa. We are also looking at ways of working particularly with women and young people with a view to preventing infection in the first place.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that some government Ministers and many taxi drivers in those African countries deny the presence of HIV and AIDS and that that is a dangerous situation for tourists? Can something be done through diplomatic lines with the Ministers and Prime Ministers of those countries?

My Lords, there is a great deal of denial across the world with regard to the whole area of HIV/AIDS. That is why it is important that we invest money in raising awareness of the subject among populations across the world. We are trying to deal with some of the, as they are termed, "cultural factors" which prevent AIDS programmes being put in place. In countries which have tackled HIV/AIDS successfully, such as Uganda, Senegal and Thailand, we have seen leadership coming from the very top of society. It is important that we encourage that leadership in sub-Saharan Africa and in South Asia.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are represented at the international conference on AIDS which is taking place currently, or perhaps has just finished, in Durban in Kwazulu-Natal? If the Government are not represented, what support are they giving to those who are in attendance?

My Lords, the Government, are represented. The senior health adviser at the Department for International Development is heading the UK delegation and there are also representatives from the Department of Health.

My Lords, if it is not already included in the advice which the Minister mentioned, will she include advice to people to take a small safety pack of syringes and medicament which they may require for treatment, because even the most basic items may be unavailable in Africa?

My Lords, the advice that we give is extremely comprehensive. Indeed, we ensure that those with HIV/AIDS who travel abroad know that they should take their own medicines with them.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Paymaster General announced on 22nd March the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy and a £209 million investment to implement it. That strategy is designed to reverse the trend of tobacco smuggling within three years and reduce it to below current levels in the longer term.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is he aware that, if current smoking trends continue, tobacco will kill 1 billion people in the 21st century, which is 10 times more than in the whole of the 20th century? Of those, three-quarters will be in developing countries. Is he familiar with the report of the Health Select Committee in another place which describes how companies such as BAT, Gallaher and Philip Morris are targeting the Third World and also contains serious allegations that BAT has been involved in smuggling? Is he yet in a position to announce whether the Government accept the committee's recommendation that BAT should be subject to a Companies Act investigation?

My Lords, we are certainly well aware of the serious health implications throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, of continuing and rising levels of tobacco smoking. So far as concerns the Health Select Committee, we are considering its recommendations and shall respond in full in due course. It would not be right for me to respond to a specific recommendation before the full response has been prepared and submitted to the committee. Customs and Excise has not received evidence that UK tobacco manufacturers have committed criminal acts relating to tobacco smuggling into the UK. However, if any evidence is produced, Customs and Excise will of course investigate fully.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in view of the fact that, so far as concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the loss of revenue since 1997 has tripled, surely that must point to the fact that the draconian tax on tobacco smoking is detrimental to our revenue? Will he say whether the Taylor report will be published and whether it recommends that VAT or tobacco duty should be reduced? When will the Government stop saying that taxation under this Government has been reduced? If one takes into account direct and indirect taxation, it has increased enormously.

My Lords, I shall certainly not underestimate the cost to this country of tobacco smuggling. We estimate that that cost now runs at approximately £2.5 billion, which is 25 per cent of tobacco revenue. As to the Taylor report, that was a private report to government and we do not intend to publish it. However, the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling White Paper, which we published in March and which I referred to in my first Answer, implements many of the recommendations which Mr Taylor made to us.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, so long as a wide and unharmonised gap exists between the price of tobacco products in this country and in our neighbouring EU states, there will be a temptation and incentive to smuggle and such crime will continue? Do the Government appreciate that that means that many young people will have access to less expensive tobacco or cigarettes outside the normal and lawful system which governs the retailing of those products, and that, in addition to the burdens and loss faced by the Treasury, the effect on the retail trade is serious?

My Lords, it is common ground that too many people smoke and too many people smoke smuggled cigarettes. That is damaging both to health and to taxation. However, there are two ways of approaching that as a problem. One is the solution proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, to reduce excise duties. That might help in one sense but certainly would not help from the health point of view. The other is the course that we are taking: to crack down on smuggling itself. The strategy which we published involves disruption of the supply chain, improved intelligence at ports and inland distribution points, confiscation of assets, and more and better human and, indeed, technological resources to catch those who carry out the smuggling.

My Lords, perhaps I should say that I am definitely not a non-smoker. Can the Minister confirm that, after drug smuggling, tobacco smuggling is the second biggest criminal activity in the UK, far exceeding the level of benefit fraud identified in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, on the informal economy? That being so, how does the Government's spending on the problem compare with the resources that they commit to deal with benefit fraud?

My Lords, we are prepared to spend what is necessary to tackle tobacco smuggling. I have outlined some of the things that we are going to do. Our proposals involve considerable extra expenditure, including nearly 1,000 additional staff for Customs and Excise. If we found it necessary or appropriate to spend more money, I am sure that we would do so. Given that we are losing £2.5 billion a year, the programme is not constrained by cash.

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the policy of raising excise duty at a rate higher than inflation was introduced by the previous Conservative government? That was very much to the credit of the then Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and we strongly supported that policy at the time, when we were in opposition. Would my noble friend be impressed if the Conservatives occasionally supported the Government in pursuit of a policy that is very beneficial to the nation—and also happens to help the Treasury?

My Lords, I noticed that the opposition to excise duties on tobacco came from the noble Lord, Lord Clark, on the Conservative Back Benches. He was not supported by his Front Bench. It would be helpful if the Conservatives supported us now as we supported them then.

My Lords, is the Taylor report available to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

My Lords, I do not think that it is a financial report, so it does not come within the scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General's responsibilities. If I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, as some noble Lords may recall, the issue was addressed on two occasions yesterday during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. To repeat what I said then, the Bill provides that the starting time for the statutory minimum concession is 9.30 a.m. That reflects representations from local government. It is open to local authorities to set an earlier time if they think it appropriate. If they already have an earlier start time, there is no need for them to change it because of anything in the Transport Bill.

My Lords, although the introduction of concessionary fares in the Transport Bill is welcome, it is a very restricted measure. Even the 9.30 a.m. start is unacceptable to pensioners' organisations and the disabled. They are particularly concerned about getting to hospital appointments. Does the Minister also accept that the 9 a.m. start has operated in London for many years, where free passes are available? Why not at least make the 9 a.m. start uniform throughout the country? That would be welcomed as fair by pensioners and the disabled.

My Lords, in the other place, we introduced a free bus pass. In your Lordships' House, we extended the concessions to the disabled. We accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment in Committee in the other place to change the morning start time from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. The passenger transport executive group had called for that later starting time because considerable numbers of school and college journeys are undertaken between 9 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and in larger cities transport operators have to recover from the congestion of the morning peak during that time. It is also true that 9.30 a.m. is the usual starting time for concessionary fares and for off-peak season tickets. I stress that local authorities are free to provide a scheme that is better than the statutory minimum.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 27, after ("year;") insert—

("( ) a statement of accounts giving a true and fair view of the state of affairs and the income and expenditure of the Authority for the year;").

My Lords, I agree with part of what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said and all of what my noble friend Lord Borrie said. Indeed, in Committee, in responding to a similar amendment, I said that I had sympathy in principle with the intention underlying it. Readers of annual reports would have in one document an account of the authority's activities alongside a statement of the resources used in delivering those activities. I agree with the noble Baroness that that would be helpful.

I also agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that the reference in the amendment to giving,

"a true and fair view",

of the state of affairs implies that the accounts about which we are talking are the audited accounts. The effect of the amendment would be to require the authority to publish its annual audited statement of accounts as part of its annual report.

The Bill already makes it easier to publish the authority's audited accounts with the annual report because the respective reporting periods have been aligned. The Bill now requires the authority to prepare its annual report on a financial year basis, whereas the preceding regulator has been required to produce his annual report on a calendar year basis.

I do not believe that we should make it a statutory requirement to include audited accounts, exactly for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Borrie because the publication timetable would be tied to the audit timetable. That is too inflexible. There is a risk that in some years publication of the annual report would be significantly delayed if the audit took longer than usual to complete.

It may be helpful if I were to illustrate the potential difficulty. The Government Resources and Accounts Bill which will apply, subject to Royal Assent, from the start of the financial year 2001 to 2002, sets out the requirements on government departments relating to the preparation and the audit of resource accounts. Those accounts have to be submitted by departments to the National Audit Office no later than 30th November each year. The Comptroller and Auditor General has to send the audited accounts to the Treasury no later than 15th January the following year and the accounts are to be laid before the House of Commons by 31st January. Those are final deadlines and, in practice, the accounts are likely to be audited before then. However, at worst, an annual report ready for publication in July or August could be delayed until the end of January in the following year if it were to include the audited account.

As a general principle, I agree that the report and accounts should be published together and as quickly as possible. Where the audited accounts are not available, I believe that the authority should, as Ofgem currently does, include basic unaudited information about income and expenditure and staffing levels in the report. But if there is a significant delay with the audited accounts, I do not think the annual report should be held back.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that we do not intend this to be a delaying tactic. Rather, we are looking for proper accountability of the workings of the authority. That is why we said we would look to the Government for an undertaking that the authority would publish accounts at or near the same time as publication of the annual report.

I am pleased that the Minister stated today that audited accounts should be published as quickly as possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 7, line 26, at end insert

("(c) to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply;").

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in his amendment. I, too, am extremely puzzled why the Government have persistently, in earlier stages of our consideration of this Bill, refused to insert the words of the amendment even though the Minister has stated repeatedly that it is an objective of government.

So far the Government have not introduced any legislation setting out their energy policy. This is the nearest we have got to it. Therefore such an important statement of intent should be included. The regulator must surely bear in mind that this is a major intention of government in regard to energy policy. There are a number of likely changes in energy development in the years ahead. For example, we in Britain will see the phasing out of nuclear power. It started with the Magnox stations and it will go on to the AGRs. In due course the PWR reactors will be phased out. The question will then arise as to how this capacity is to be replaced.

There is also the issue of gas supply. At present we are well supplied from the North Sea, but that is a limited resource. In due course we shall have to depend on supplies from more distant places which are not entirely reliable. There is the role that coal may have to play, assuming that we can progress the use of clean coal technology. These are all issues which bear directly on the future regulation of the gas and electricity industries. Therefore, it is very difficult to see why the Government persist, on what appear to be purely technical grounds, in leaving this important element of their energy policy out of account on the face of the Bill. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said.

My Lords, I apologise for being a minute or two late arriving in the Chamber. I support both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is perplexing that the Government say that they have a commitment to make sure that we have a diverse supply of energy but cannot accept this amendment. It seems very contrary. I cannot understand why the Government are taking that tack. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

I hope that I am not out of order. I thank the Minister for responding to my Amendment No. 54 tabled at Report stage. However, I did not receive the reply until this morning, which was too late for me to do anything with it. I have contacted the other people concerned with the amendment. They appreciate the Minister's reply and accept what he says. In principle it is possible to have renewable resources, but I am told that commercially it is still unlikely to happen, as it would have been if my amendment had been accepted. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will he able to respond. I support both noble Lords.

My Lords. I also support this amendment. My name is attached to it. In the debates both in Committee and on Report we discussed at length the issue of whether security of supply was necessary. The Minister conceded that the market will not always provide. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, security of supply is a matter of government policy. If that is so, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, this is an obvious place where the Government devolve that responsibility to the regulator. It is natural that the Government should do that.

The amendment takes up three other issues which were of concern to us during the debates. One of them is diversity of supply. We have spoken about the offshore gas and oil industry and later we shall be talking about renewables. The advantage of writing these provisions into the terms and objectives of the regulator is that it would write the diversity of renewables into the heart of the regulator's objectives.

We also talked at some length about clean coal technology. Coal is a fossil fuel where the United Kingdom is best endowed. It is vitally important that we do not lose the technology completely. As my noble friend Lord Ezra made clear at both Committee and Report stages, we were at the leading edge of the technology, but we have allowed it to lag and for other countries to take over. If we write such a provision into the heart of the objectives of the regulator, it would provide at least a little chink through which we could get something more done.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, began by saying that he made no apology for raising again at Third Reading a matter dealt with both at Committee and Report stages and, indeed, at Second Reading. I do not know whether that means that I should make an apology for the fact that I have very little new to say on a matter which has been debated on several occasions in very similar terms with very similar arguments to those put before. Some people would say that it is an abuse of Third Reading to deal with the matter in this way. I do not express any view on that, but if the House finds it helpful I shall be happy to repeat what I have already said.

The essence of our position is that where the Bill involves issues of security of supply, the current provisions in the Bill are already sufficient and the amendments add nothing. The authority and the Secretary of State are already given a principal objective to protect the interests of consumers. Clauses 9 and 13 of the Bill make clear that that includes future as well as existing consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, does not seem to believe that that is important. Everyone else to whom I have spoken seems to believe that it is enormously important. If we were concerned only with existing consumers, it could be argued that short-term considerations were paramount. However, the needs of future generations of energy consumers are clearly set out in the objectives of the Bill. To me that is a very fundamental sign of dedication to security of supply in the longer term.

Of course, consumers have a fundamental interest in securing that reasonable demands for gas and electricity are met. That is what the clauses are intended to achieve. But it is the Government's responsibility—and I stress that—and not just that of the regulator for ensuring supply, which involves the exercise of a whole range of policy instruments, most of which raise issues or concern matters which fall far outside the scope of utilities regulation. I indicated by a nod of the head to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, when he asked whether I meant legislation or regulation, that I meant utilities regulation. That is what this Bill is about: it is a utilities regulation Bill. As I said, to the extent to which the Bill can play a part in ensuring security of supply the provisions of Clauses 9 and 13 already achieve that.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, believe that if one has an energy policy one needs legislation to set it out. It does not follow from having a government policy that one has to have legislation to enforce it. Anyone who has been in government will recognise that one does not introduce legislation unless one has to. Legislation is not introduced giving government powers if they already exist or if they can, by their own free will, so to speak, adopt, for example, the climate change levy objectives. One does not need legislation for that as such but only to implement certain parts of it. Where legislation is required, it has been, and is being, introduced.

Perhaps I may illustrate the range of policy issues which contribute to the maintenance of security of supply. Quite apart from the issues raised by the Bill, they include the management of the UK Continental Shelf and such matters as securing stability and access to overseas sources of energy. All issues which are relevant to the offshore energy industry not covered by this legislation need not necessarily be covered exclusively by legislation anywhere. The Government can have effective policies on those issues. Many of them are far outside the scope of the utilities regulation. To the extent that this legislation for utilities regulation is appropriate, the Bill makes appropriate provision.

But the Bill is not the whole picture. The Government are working to ensure security of supply. On a day-to-day basis the markets will ensure that energy supplies are maintained. Diversity of approach and the ability to change quickly, which are provided by competitive markets, ensure the sort of responsive system needed to underpin security and diversity. The Government will use their ability to set the framework in which the energy markets will achieve this.

The Bill makes provision for the new electricity trading arrangements. These will increase the incentive on generators and suppliers to ensure that adequate generation is available to meet demand. Generators and suppliers will face commercial penalties, which could be large, if they do not meet their contractual obligations. This will be an important further contribution for security of supply. The new electricity trading arrangements will also ensure that the appropriate price signals are given to bring forward new investment when this is needed and for customers to manage their demand to the benefit of energy security.

The existing framework of legislation provides for tough service standards on transmission and distribution companies. These are monitored by Ofgem, the industry regulator, and include guaranteed standards whereby the distributor must pay the customer if the service levels laid down are not met. There are also licence conditions that apply to gas suppliers and transporters which lay down quantified standards of security of supply in relation to meeting demand. These are enforced by Ofgem. The measures are backed up by wide-ranging emergency powers under the Energy Act 1976. These permit the Secretary of State to make orders regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and acquisition of fuels to ensure security of supply.

The Electricity Act also includes powers to give directions on the level of stocks and the use of generating stations. Further measures are set out in the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, which provide for the continuity and safety of electricity supply. These require electricity supplies to be constant, except in certain circumstances.

It is obvious that we are continuing to keep the strategic issues that relate to diversity and security of supply under review. Future energy policy will increasingly be conducted in the context of global and European markets. We have been working actively with the European Commission and other member states to help to build a single European market. This will not only help to promote free trade and energy but should also assist in improving the security of supply across Europe.

The hierarchy of duties in the Bill already contains all the duties that are relevant for the purposes of this legislation and which are necessary for the security of supply. As I said in Committee, it follows that amendments such as these are a distraction and would serve to confuse rather than enhance the framework of obligations and duties under the legislation.

I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for not having referred earlier to her point about access by renewables generators to the network under NETA, which was the focus of her previous Amendment No. 54 on Report. As I said in my letter to her, we are seeking to resolve this point in the context of the balancing and settlement codes rather than on the face of the Bill. Amendments to the Bill would not make matters any better. They would not make anything worse; but they would not make things any better. This is another example of not seeking to do everything by means of primary legislation.

I believe that it is a well-established fact—in this House at any rate—that the volume of legislation is increasing and ought to be diminished. I suggest that noble Lords should not seek to make legislation the only source of expression for government policy.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who expressed their support for this amendment. Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that I did not argue that it is only the regulator—I believe I remember his words correctly—who should have regard to security and diversity. Of course that is not so: it is all those who are concerned with the future of energy supplies in this country who should have that responsibility. In a Bill that sets up a new regulator of our two major energy industries—namely, electricity and gas—all we are asking is that that body should also have this obligation placed upon it as one of the matters to which it must have regard and that that should be written into the legislation.

The Minister concluded by saying that we should not have unnecessary legislation. I was a member of the special Select Committee on renewable development chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, which sat about four years ago. I have the clearest recollection of the time when we were looking at complaints about the Energy Saving Trust. The trust was supposed to be financed by a very modest levy on the gas and electricity industries, which would provide the necessary resources to enable it to help people with insulation and other energy-saving measures. The electricity regulator complied with that obligation and that industry was allowed to make a contribution. However, the gas regulator said very firmly that there was nothing in her terms of reference or in her legislation that obliged her to make such a contribution to the trust. She was extremely robust about it—indeed, she is a very robust lady—and said that she was not going to do so. Therefore, the gas industry never made its contribution. Why? It was simply because that obligation was not in the legislation.

We believe that GEMA should have regard to diversity and a long-term energy supply and that that obligation should be placed on the face of the Bill It should not be able to say what its predecessor, Clare Spottiswoode said; namely, that because it was not in the legislation she was not going to do it. I believe this to be a sufficiently important matter to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 10, line 37, at end insert ("and

(c) to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply;").

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 42, line 4, leave out ("two months") and insert ("28 days").

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the proposed consultation period is unlikely to be contested. It is important to recognise the nature of the transaction we are talking about. Transferring a licence will involve changes to a large number of contracts with third parties. It is the kind of deal that by its own nature will take time to work through. In these circumstances it does not seem excessive to allow for a minimum period of two months to accommodate the possible breadth of consultation.

I acknowledge that in practice the proposal would not make much difference because the period for consultation, whether it is two months or 28 days as proposed, is a minimum period. However, the draft Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office proposes that there should be a general minimum of eight weeks for public consultation. In my experience, governments are generally criticised for permitting too short a period of consultation rather than too long a period. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are doing the right thing.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Like the Electricity Association and other representatives we have consulted, we feel that a period of 28 days would make sense because in many cases we are talking about house transfers and simple realignments. The utilities industry wishes to get on the job and carry it out as expediently and as quickly as possible. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I am sorry that the Minister has not reduced the period but we accept what he has had to say on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 65, line 34, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the provisions of an order will provide a suitable environment for investment in generating capacity for electricity from diverse renewable resources in order to meet the targets for production of electricity from renewable resources set by him.").

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I hope that I may be excused, perhaps before the end of the debate, because there is a Joint Select Committee meeting upstairs and I would not wish your Lordships' component of that committee to be inquorate.

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to consider seriously a point I have made before, both in Committee and on Report. I believe that the Government are right to set a target; they are also right to ensure diversity. What worries me—and I am still anxious despite the earlier debates—is that the quickest way of meeting the target will be from onshore windpower. I am not at all satisfied that that would be the wisest or most acceptable course. Certainly other forms of generation need to be encouraged to avoid an excessive proliferation of windmills over every prominent, and perhaps beautiful, part of our landscape—a landscape which needs to be treasured.

Can my noble friend give an assurance that, if it looks as though the Government may not meet their target, they will not be tempted to lean on local authorities and urge them to give planning permission for such projects? I say that because I have a vivid memory of the period when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was Secretary of State for the Environment and, under successive governments, many of his colleagues sustained the position of the Department of the Environment leaning on planning authorities very firmly indeed to ensure that planning permission was given for open-cast mining development—a development which soured, injured and inconvenienced local communities, perhaps for many years. Indeed, in my part of South Yorkshire, 40 years after open-cast mining farmers cannot grow root crops.

I am not suggesting that there should not be windpower—perhaps offshore windpower is desirable—but I do not want to see a situation in which we are compelled to have a vast number of onshore windmills in order to meet the very tight targets the Government have set. I have made the point before and I await my noble friend's response, perhaps by letter. To avoid that disfigurement of our heritage it is essential to ensure adequate consideration is given to promoting diversity.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I appreciate the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. I shall not rehearse the excellent presentation with which my noble friend Lord Jenkin moved the amendment. But I would point out that on an earlier amendment the Minister referred to "the short-term solution". Obviously short-term solutions are important. But for very small producers of power, if there is no long term, there is no short term. I add my voice in support of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will reconsider our arguments on this issue.

My Lords, I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The amendments support the Government's intent, which is to secure the renewable sources targets. The two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, deal with the environment within which renewable sources should be promoted and orders made for the renewable obligation. The second amendment deals with an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the generators of electricity from renewable sources. When this second issue was debated at Report stage, the Minister stated that there was an omnibus subsection that would enable him to consult,

"such other persons, if any, as he considers appropriate".—[Official Report, 5/7/00; col. 1545.]

I regard that as weak and dismissive. He might well say that there are none. The whole clause deals with generation from renewable sources. Therefore, consultation with generators of electricity from renewable sources should be made an obligation on the Secretary of State. The two amendments support the Government's intent. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.

My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief comment on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. In doing so, I declare a direct interest as chairman of an electricity company which has substantial hydroelectric resources. I do not wish to argue a point directly related to that company, but it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Do the Government wish to encourage investment in hydro resources? It is not a matter to be put on the face of the Bill itself. It is more a matter of attitude.

My Lords, I support the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. My name is attached to Amendment No. 6. I do not need to reiterate the arguments. I endorse them entirely. I should like to mention an excellent report last year from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. The committee looked at the issue of renewable targets and underlined the need for long-term investment. Much of the investment, particularly in some of the more speculative renewable areas, such as photovoltaics, needs the surety of the environment to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. It is very important that we consider meeting the renewables target. At present we are at just over 2 per cent of the renewables target. The target is 10 per cent by 2010. We stand little chance of meeting that target unless there is long-term investment.

My Lords, I shall deal with each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 5 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to ensure that the terms of any renewables order that he makes are, if I may paraphrase, sufficient to ensure that there are enough investment incentives to achieve the long-term objectives that he has set. I cannot say that I disagree that this should be uppermost in the Secretary of State's mind when setting an order. But I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, this question. Can he imagine a Secretary of State making an order when he does not believe that it will bring about the objectives which he himself has set? I think the answer is obvious. On reflection I think he will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment No. 6 would introduce a statutory obligation to consult the generators of electricity from renewable sources before making a renewables order. Again, I have no quibble with the underlying thought. Of course those who generate renewables energy should be consulted about the terms of an order. But then so should those who have ideas about how possible new renewable sources can be tapped. Academics and pressure groups will have views. They should be consulted. The general public too have a right to express their views and have them heard. We could make a long list. We have heard differing views on the effect of particular renewables sources on the local environment. But the Bill provides for all of these to be consulted in new Section 32(7)(d), which provides that the Secretary of State must consult,

"such … persons … as he considers appropriate".

It is not necessary to pick out one group for special treatment. Indeed, there are those who argue that it is dangerous to pick out one group for special treatment. However, I am a reasonable person and I am always willing to listen to arguments. The amendment will not work. The amendment refers to,

"the generators of electricity from renewable sources".

Strictly speaking, that means every generator of energy from renewable sources. It means that if a single one were to be left out, including a very small generator of energy from electricity sources, there could be a risk of ultra tires challenge in the courts. I am prepared to let the amendment go on the basis that when it goes back to the Commons we will have to reword it to avoid the risk I have indicated but still achieve the objective of noble Lords who propose it. With those provisos I shall not oppose Amendment No. 6.

Before I sit down, perhaps I may say a few words about hydro power and wind power. Hydro power is included in the definition of "renewables". We certainly do not want to use the powers to support large-scale commercial hydro power which is already commercially established and does not need any help. Regarding wind power, to which my noble friend Lord Hardy referred, there is no question of our leaning on councils to grant planning permission for wind farms. We have made clear that the strategy is market-based and we shall not be picking technologies. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 5 and will accept that Amendment No. 6 can be accepted only subject to subsequent amendment.

My Lords, we seem to have scored a second victory today. I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to accept Amendment No. 6; otherwise we might have been tempted to press it to a Division. We shall not. We look forward to seeing what comes back from another place. I take the point about drafting. We shall deal with that when we reach it.

On Amendment No. 5, the noble Lord asked a rhetorical question. He asked whether I could imagine any Secretary of State who would not want to create a climate favourable to investment, with the right incentives and so on. If I was dealing with reasonable people, that might well be the case. But I suspect that some of us could think of names where that might come rather low in their order of priorities. That is why we thought that the provision should appear on the face of the Bill. However, as the Minister has met us on Amendment No. 6 and made a good case against including Amendment No. 5 in the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 65, line 40, after ("apply;") insert—

("( ) the generators of electricity from renewable sources;").

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 67, line 11, at end insert—

("( ) In the case of electricity from biomass, or from such other renewable sources as the Secretary of State shall specify, any such order shall specify a minimum contract term of not less than 15 years for the delivery of the specified amount of electricity from renewable sources by the designated electricity supplier, and that the terms of any contract made between the electricity supplier and the provider of the renewable resources pursuant to such an order shall be in a form approved by the Secretary of State and shall provide that—

(a) it shall run for not less than 15 years from the start of generation,

(b) the price paid by the supplier to such supplier shall be subject to an annual price adjustment to reflect the effects of inflation, and

(c) the contract must be in a form capable of being used as security for a loan or loans to such provider.").

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. At various stages of the Bill's passage through the House we have discussed the whole future of renewables—particularly biomass and the adaptation of non-food crops. I do not believe that the Minister disagrees with us. I think he accepts that it is not a short-term job and that it needs long-term planning and investment. The people working in this field with whom I have had conversations feel strongly that they would like to have more government support. If the Minister does not accept the logic behind the amendment, perhaps he will explain to the House how, without such commitments, he sees the development of renewables in the future.

My Lords, the amendment has the support of the Liberal Democrats. It picks up the arguments which I put forward in respect of the previous amendment. I refer to the need for long-term planning and long-term contracts. I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have said on that issue. In relation to biomass, we should also bear in mind that agriculture is going through a major crisis and that it is looking for areas into which it can diversify. Biomass is an important area into which it can diversify.

My Lords, I fear that this amendment runs into exactly the same objections as did similar amendments which we debated in Committee and on Report. We do not accept that we should retain a feature of the old non-fossil fuel obligation mechanism—government-mandated long-term renewable supply contracts. That runs contrary to the entire thrust of the Government's market-based policy for the new renewables obligation.

I have to point out that the amendment is unworkable and could be perverse in its effects. No order can ensure that contracts entered into are suitable for use as security for a loan. Requiring indexation of the price paid runs directly counter to the objective of bringing down the price of renewables energy in real terms, so that it is genuinely competitive with energy from other sources. After all the debate we have had on renewable energy, I am astonished that any noble Lord opposite could think that it is possible to have a renewables policy which relies on indexation of the price of renewable energy. Surely, the only way practically that we shall get an increase in the amount of renewables used is by bringing down the price. I am astonished to find the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, proposing government interference in the terms of contracts between consenting parties. I am sure that the noble Lord's Front Bench cannot possibly agree with that part of the amendment.

Perhaps I may repeat our position on the underlying issue, which is whether the new obligations as planned by the Government will in fact deliver sufficient investment in renewables to meet the Government's renewables targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, addressed that point. The Government consulted last year on the kinds of support mechanisms which should be used to promote the development of renewable energy. Among a number of diverse views in the responses to that consultation there was considerable support for an obligation on suppliers. So the Government are putting in place a long-term obligation on suppliers, which will last until 2025. That will determine from the outset the profile of the obligation on suppliers, the eligible renewables, the buy-out mechanism and the mechanism for recycling of buy-out receipts.

Renewable energy resources are limited. They are not always available to meet potential demand. The rate at which they can be deployed is limited. The Government are confident that such a long-term obligation, and the premium price which renewables will attract, will enable suppliers and generators to bring forward renewables capacity in the confidence that there will be a market for the product at prices that will attract appropriate levels of investment capital.

If we are moving to a market-based approach, the matter of individual contracts and the choice of technologies to meet the supply obligation are surely matters properly left for negotiation between generators and suppliers. I should not have to say that—to the Conservative Party at any rate. Having said that, I would repeat that the obligation on suppliers will be a long-term obligation. Any supplier with any sense, facing a long-term obligation, will negotiate a long-term contract to fulfil it. There is no need, even if it were a practical option, which it is not, to make the kind of provisions included in the amendment.

My Lords, I believe that the Minister has done rather better in his response to this amendment. The arguments he has deployed seem to have some force. However, without wishing to repeat myself, the fact is that the entire system is essentially an interference with the market and so it is not unreasonable to suggest that that interference might be extended.

However, the Minister has made a strong case and I take entirely his point as regards the indexation clause. It would be wrong to press the amendment to a Division. Given that, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have supported it.

The Minister's speech will be studied with interest by all those who are involved in this area. I hope that it will provide them with some reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 68, line 9, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall have regard both to the costs of production of differing sources of renewable electricity and to the implications for fulfilment of the renewables target when setting the differing sums which are to be regarded as discharging the renewables obligation under this section.").

My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by my noble friend in moving this amendment. I believe that the targets on renewable energy sources are a matter of great concern to Members on all sides of the House rather than only those on these Benches. If we do not take care, those targets will not be met. Whatever can be done in the Bill to help to achieve those aims will be greatly appreciated by many, both within and outside of this House.

My Lords, the short answer to the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is that consumers have an interest in renewable energy sources because those consumers are both present and future consumers. Unless real progress is made towards the achievement of our targets on renewable energy sources, then security of supply and all the other factors for which we are providing in this Bill will not be gained.

I must repeat what I have said at earlier stages of the Bill: this amendment is unnecessary. The fact that the Secretary of State was contemplating setting different buy-out prices for different technologies would imply of necessity that he was having regard to different costs of different technologies. It cannot mean anything else. By the same token, it is not conceivable that the Secretary of State would set different prices without regard to the implications for the levels of renewables generation likely to be achieved as a result. Again, the Bill as drafted cannot mean anything else. Furthermore, it will not benefit the Bill to have an amendment of this kind added to it.

Unless there should be any doubt about this matter, perhaps I may set out again our thinking on how our support for the new technologies is going to work. I believe that it is generally agreed that as electricity suppliers move towards the 10 per cent target they are likely to find that the supply of cheaper renewables may run out or will not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve the more demanding targets. The suppliers will look increasingly towards more expensive sources of renewable energy—for example, offshore wind and energy crops—to meet their obligations. Those energy sources cannot be brought in overnight. In their own interests, it would be prudent and sensible for electricity suppliers to look ahead now to ensure that such technologies will be brought forward on a timescale and in sufficient quantities to meet their needs. The suggestion behind the amendment is that price bands should be used to achieve that. I should point out that the legislation does not rule out the use of price bands. However, we have no current intention to put them to use. If we did, then we could use the existing provisions of the Bill without having to make further provision along the lines suggested in the amendment.

I am not unsympathetic to the intentions that lie behind the amendment, but the Bill very adequately provides the basis on which electricity suppliers themselves will be urged and, if necessary, even forced towards the objectives so eagerly sought by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and indeed by the Government.

My Lords, I listened with care to the Minister. Once again he made a fairly strong case. If indeed it is already within the power of the Bill to implement differential buy-out prices, it strikes me that difficulties will be encountered with the single flat rate cap. This may be something that the Government need to examine more closely. At an earlier stage we argued that a cap should be triggered only if it was clear that excessive prices were being charged to consumers. However, the Government did not like that. As they see it, the cap forms an integral part of the process.

However, if the power is in place to use differential prices, at this stage perhaps we should rely on that. I welcome also the thought that was given to the response to meet the intentions that lie behind the amendment. I believe that we all seek the same objective in this area, and perhaps the amendment is not the right way forward. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 75, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

moved amendment No. 10:

Page 100, line 31, at end insert—

("( ) The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder under subsection (1) where it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.").

My Lords, we are delighted that the Government have introduced this provision, which mirrors the amendment that we tabled on Report, and which is now Clause 59(2) of the Bill. We are particularly delighted that the drafting is as ours.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 118, line 13, at end insert—

("( ) The definitions in sections 48 and 66 of the 1986 Act shall, as regards matters relating to gas, apply to this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.")

("( ) The definitions in sections 64 and 111 of the 1989 Act shall, as regards matters relating to electricity, apply to this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.").

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt that graceful minuet. I should merely like to express my satisfaction and, I believe, the gratitude of many other Members of this House for the noble and learned Lord's careful scrutiny of so much of our legislation. His ability, which few if any others of us possess, lies in persuading the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen that what he proposes is better than what they propose. In this case, they have managed to propose something nearly as good, and we are very pleased. But it is notable, the way in which the noble and learned Lord on occasion comes in and disperses the fog that has obscured matters. I merely want to say thank you to him.

Hear, hear.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said nearly all of it, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said most of the rest—although I have to say that I bridle at the phrase "nearly as good". Of course, it is marvellous that the noble and learned Lord should, as he so often does, pursue his intention of making the drafting of this Bill and other measures more transparent and more accessible to laymen. He has a point and he has argued it. He is right. However, our drafting is better, as I think the noble and learned Lord will admit!

My Lords, I think I may have been premature in asking leave to withdraw the amendment!

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 118, line 14, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1986") and insert ("which are defined in section 48 or 66 of the 1986 Act or used in Part I of that").

moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 118, line 18, leave out ("and in Part I of the 1989") and insert ("which are defined in section 64 or 111 of the 1989 Act or used in Part I of that").

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 118, line 19, at end insert—

("( ) Section 46 of the 1986 Act (service of notices, etc.) shall apply to any document authorised or required by virtue of any provision of this Act to be served on or given to any person as if it were authorised or required to be served or given by virtue of that Act.").

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 120, line 8, at end insert—

("( ) Before making any appointments to the Authority, the Secretary of State shall seek and take account of the opinion of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of the House of Commons.").

My Lords, the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place will have a most important role in scrutinising and checking the work of the new gas and electricity markets authority, just as it has an important role in checking the work of other governmental bodies and executive bodies of very different kinds but within the general area of trade and industry. I think it is important that the job should be done by a body which is completely independent of the gas and electricity markets authority. If the legislature is to be a proper check on the executive, it is important that it should not have a hand in the appointment of the people who are to constitute an executive body.

If the Select Committee has a role in choosing members of the gas and electricity markets authority, and if the choices favoured by it are approved by the Government, possibly it would be a little less than robust in the work that it did. If, on the other hand, the Trade and Industry Select Committee was looking into the work of a body whose members it did not suggest, or indeed did not believe to be appropriate, the attitude might be one of determined opposition and it might be so robust as to be unreasonable.

That may sound a little exaggerated but, if it is, it is only to make my point that I am not sure that the same body which is to do the checking of the executive should have a hand, albeit a consultative hand, in the choice of members of that executive body. I believe that there may be a case—and this needs to be argued over a broad field and not just in connection with this particular authority—for Parliament, through a Select Committee, to have some kind of consultative role in the appointment of members of governmental and public bodies. However, I very much doubt whether the same Select Committee should have a role in the choice of members of an executive or public authority and also be an effective check on that authority's work. I think that a much broader parliamentary role for public appointments needs a much broader study than we can give on this occasion. Indeed the same argument would have applied to earlier discussions of the Bill. Confining ourselves, as we must under this Bill, to one particular authority, that would be an interesting innovation and one well worth debating, but it would not be an appropriate innovation to introduce in respect of this Bill, and certainly not at this stage.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to think that this amendment is a compromise on the amendment which he moved at an earlier stage, which was in effect a confirmatory amendment. Of course it is not really a compromise, because it requires the Secretary of State not just to seek the opinion of the Trade and Industry Select Committee before appointing members of the new authority but to take account of their views. That immediately puts us into the dilemma described by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.

Speaking, if I may, as a human being and as a rank-and-file member of the Labour Party, I think the whole issue of the relationship between Select Committees in another place and public bodies would deserve broader discussion. That is why I would hope to persuade my party that this might be included in a future manifesto. It may well be, although I have not discussed this with my colleague Ministers, that many people hold a view which is strongly opposed to that. But whatever view they may have, the issue of whether you start to involve Select Committees of the House of Commons in whatever way—whether by way of having their views taken account of or by needing formal consultation—would be a complete innovation in our constitution. It certainly would deserve a great deal more public discussion than we can achieve in the House of Lords examining the Utilities Bill at Third Reading.

There was some confusion at an earlier stage about the position of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and it was suggested that there was something comparable to confirmatory hearings by the Treasury Select Committee. Of course the Treasury Select Committee can call members of the Monetary Policy Committee to appear before it and it has the right to pass any judgment it sees fit. However, it does not have a statutory role in regard to appointments. As was made clear in respect of a recent appointment, that decision lies entirely with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that this is not the place for constitutional innovation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would like to make a name for himself as a great constitutional innovator, but I think he might find a better occasion to do it.

My Lords, I do not know what gave the noble Lord the Minister the idea that I want to make a name for myself in any sphere of political activity, let alone the constitution.

I must say that I am disappointed by the reaction of the noble Lord and indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. In my submission, the innovation by the Government in introducing a power for the Treasury Committee to interview members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was a wholly admirable one. Indeed, I would not have thought that the Government would have introduced it unless they thought it was admirable.

I understand that the Government, in general terms, support the strengthening of Parliament in relation to the executive. Here we are not even talking about the executive as Ministers but about the executive as members of regulatory authorities. Surely it is desirable for parliamentary committees to examine the policies of members of regulatory committees before they take office and to ask what targets they seek to reach so that, if they fail to meet them, they can be taken to task. That is what the role of parliamentary committees is supposed to be.

Certainly many other countries, notably the United States of America, are far ahead of us in this respect. Indeed, such is my disappointment with the reaction of the noble Lord the Minister that I wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 122, line 39, leave out ("publish") and insert ("include").

moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21:

Page 122, line 43, leave out from ("be") to end of line 44 and insert ("included in the report if—

(a) that individual or body has consented to its inclusion:").

Page 123, line 1, leave out ("disclose") and insert ("include").

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 130, line 13, leave out ("to which lie is maintaining a connection").

moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:

Page 135, line 1, after ("23,") insert ("30A.").

Page 138, line 31, leave out ("section 32, section") and insert ("27A. 32,").

moved Amendments Nos. 25:

Page 140, line 33, leave out from ("effect") to ("as") in line 35.

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 141, line 8, leave out from ("that") to end of line 9.

My move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.) On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Postal Services Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Read a third time.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 32, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").

My Lords, we thank the Minister for the change from "the" to "a" which we believe meets in some way the amendment we tabled on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.