I express my support for the amendment. A number of the utilities are doing something on their own behalf to try to present themselves to the regulator as responsible citizens, as it were. They tend to use expressions, such as stakeholder engagement monitoring, which is a bit of a mouthful. If it is good enough for the utilities to do it independently to try to present themselves in a way that will meet the requirements of the regulator, it is surely appropriate that this rather complex market system that we are seeking to construct should have a degree of independence. I do not think that it should be seen as anything other than sympathetic monitoring. It is in everyone’s interests that the system works and that those who monitor are credible and independent.
The manner in which it has been constructed here, as my noble friend said, is not necessarily the final word, but the principle of having in the Bill a monitoring mechanism that is seen to be independent—to the extent that these things are possible—of government, the utilities and other players is a highly desirable state of affairs. There is an awful lot of public concern and lack of trust in the utilities and the associated bodies around them. This would go some way to reassure the public that there was an independent monitoring body.
6.45 pm
I chaired a Select Committee for many years, and it was quite clear that, worthy though they are, Select Committees have severe limitations. They are seen in many instances by the public to be part of bigger government as it were, even though they try not to be. If a body was set up with responsible leadership and credible membership it would be in everyone’s interests. I do not think that we need to worry about the final wording here, but were the Government to accept the principle it would show their good intentions in saying, “We’re setting up a market that requires a degree of monitoring”.
This is not a regulatory body: I understand that it is a monitoring body. Others would be required to look carefully at its recommendations, and I am pretty certain that Select Committees in this House and the other place would want to scrutinise what it says and have its members in to speak. At the end of the day, it is up to Ofgem, in whatever form it takes, and the responsible ministry to take seriously the observations of people.
I always worry when I see someone handing something to the Minister just as you finish speaking. It usually says there is something else in the Bill that will do this, but nothing else in the Bill will do this. That is what we should be conscious of. This is one of the gaps in legislation, and it is a gap that, were it to be filled in a credible and consensual manner, would go some way to afford a degree of credibility to what will be, for most of us, a very big leap in the dark. No matter when we get the eventual SIs and the like, a wing and a prayer are still involved in this whole process. This amendment would give the public a degree of reassurance that we do not have the last word. Other people would be looking at this to see how credible it can be.