Crispin Blunt

Conservative Party | Reigate

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Crispin spoke for the Party as shadow energy minister in the final debate considering amendments from the House of Lords.

The Bill has now successfully passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): I am sorry that the Minister for Energy and Construction is not in his place. He seems to be making a habit of it: when we debated the Sustainable Energy Bill, one of his ministerial colleagues stood in for him. On that occasion the Minister was not campaigning, but properly carrying out negotiations in the British interest on a gas deal with Norway. Indeed, given the critical position of the

30 Apr 2003 : Column 372

United Kingdom's future supplies of natural gas, after the complete inadequacy of the Government's White Paper, the hon. Gentleman would have been better employed in continuing to work for the future security of our energy supply than in campaigning in the western isles. However, such are his priorities and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber.

The amendment is described as a drafting amendment. It is remarkable that my noble Friend, Lord Jenkin of Roding, managed to convince the Government that they should include the expression

"For the avoidance of doubt".

It must be unique in legislation for a Government to accept and propose for the endorsement of the House an expression that is, as the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness has told us, formally meaningless.I congratulate my noble Friend on convincing the Government that those words should be included. He was making a point about the doubt that runs through the whole Bill. Ultimately, none of the reassurances that have been given by Ministers in this place and by Lord Sainsbury in the other place have the weight of statute law. The Government were presented with a series of opportunities that would have enabled them to avoid doubt, yet all that we have been able to secure from them is this amendment.

The Bill comprises a raft of issues, not least the potential for unlimited public expenditure to support the company. The Government had the opportunity to ensure that such expenditure was limited. We were even told by Lord Sainsbury that the Government had no desire to go beyond the spending limits already set out in existing legislation. However, even though—for the avoidance of doubt—the Opposition proposed an amendment that would have quadrupled those limits, the Government would not accept it. We are left with merely a humorous aside.

The Bill is riddled with doubt as to the Government's intentions and their request for flexibility in dealing with British Energy. All the proper limits that we requested have been reduced to the expression

"For the avoidance of doubt".

That the Government believe those words will bring clarity merely reinforces the concerns expressed about the Bill in this place in our previous debates and by my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, a former Minister for Energy, when he persuaded the Government to accept the amendment.

This is not a good Bill: the incorporation of the amendment—that little phrase—is to be welcomed as it makes the point.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2.

For the full debate simply click here