My Lords, I very much oppose the amendment, which seems unnecessary. A great deal of advice is available and it is not necessary to have yet another committee. A committee has been proposed with a different role, which seems to me to have a much more sensible and wider view. That was in an earlier amendment—which has been withdrawn but which I have no doubt will come back—proposed by the former chairman of Shell UK, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. That seems to be a much better proposal than this one. It is not necessary to shove this in at this point. The Secretary of State will have at his behest a whole range of people on whose advice he can rely. This gives him permission to do that, and although I am all in favour of giving him that permission, I do not want him to have yet another committee. I think that this is the wrong way to do it and I very much hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment. I rather suspect that she will, and it is always a pleasure to end such an afternoon, now almost evening, by entirely supporting my noble friend.
Energy Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Deben
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 30 July 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Energy Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
747 c682GC Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-06 16:33:11 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-30/13073034000125
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-30/13073034000125
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-30/13073034000125