Clause 272 Local supply for community energy 2.22pm The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net
Zero (Andrew Bowie) I beg to move, That this House disagrees with
Lords amendment 274B. Lords amendment 274B was added to the Bill
during consideration in the Lords of Commons amendments. As was set
out, the Government did not agree with the inclusion of the
amendment and, after further careful consideration, we remain of
the same view today....Request free
trial
Clause 272
Local supply for community energy
2.22pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security
and Net Zero ()
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
274B. Lords amendment 274B was added to the Bill during
consideration in the Lords of Commons amendments. As was set out,
the Government did not agree with the inclusion of the amendment
and, after further careful consideration, we remain of the same
view today. The amendment commits the Government to a
consultation
“on the barriers preventing the development of community energy
schemes”
and sets out whom we would consult. It also commits the
Government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified
barriers to community energy.
However, as a result of working closely with colleagues who have
made representations during the passage of the Bill, on 5
September I set out the Government’s commitment to consult on the
barriers that the sector faces when developing projects. As a
part of that process, we are involving the community energy
sector in designing the consultation, through our community
energy contact group. The group has already had constructive
discussion on this work at its meeting earlier this month. The
Government have already made a clear commitment to the
consultation—I announced that commitment at the Dispatch Box in
September. We therefore think it is unnecessary, and of no
additional value, to put the specifics of it in primary
legislation.
Sir (Kenilworth and Southam)
(Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to put in
place not just this consultation but the fund, which will be
tremendously useful for these purposes too. Does he accept that
there is a sense of urgency here; that there is a need to get on
with removing these barriers? If he is not content with the
timetable set out in this amendment, will he give the House an
indication of what he thinks the right timetable is, so that
community energy companies and others can know where they stand
and get on with the good work that he and I are both in favour
of?
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Of
course, I agree with him that pace is of the utmost importance in
supporting community energy groups around the country, which is
why the contact group has already met earlier this month and is
engaging already on identifying the barriers that the
consultation will seek to address and, thus, informing the
Government as to what we need to do. That work is ongoing, which
is why we do not feel that this amendment is required; we have
begun that process already.
There are other issues with the amendment that mean we cannot
support its inclusion in the Bill. The amendment would place an
additional obligation on the Government to bring forward
proposals to remove these barriers within a specific timeframe.
As I just said, we cannot be sure what barriers will be raised in
the consultation, or what the proper response to those barriers
should be, until we have carried it out. We therefore cannot
create a legislative obligation to remove barriers within a
six-month timeframe when we are not aware of the nature of the
barriers and have not yet properly analysed them.
(Kingswood) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s argument, but that is technically not
what the amendment says; there is no requirement for legislative
reform, only one to bring forward proposals. It is unfair to
mislead the House—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. It is not misleading the House; the Minister might
possibly have done so inadvertently, but he would not have been
misleading the House.
My apologies to the Minister. I did not mean to make accusations
so strongly. The challenge here is that subsection (4) of the new
clause set out in the amendment contains no reference to
legislation such as the Minister suggested. That is my point.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is the
Department’s view and mine that the amendment would result in
legislation being required. As I said, we absolutely understand
the importance of this, which is why I launched the consultation
process as I did. It is why we are engaging so closely with the
sector and all interested parties so that we can get this
consultation up and running and out as soon as possible, and
identify those barriers preventing community energy groups from
accessing the market. I know that he has a passion in this area
and holds strong convictions on it. I would be happy to continue
to work with him, alongside the community energy contact group,
as we develop our proposals for the consultation.
I also wish to reassure the House that we will continue to work
closely with the sector to support its important work, both
through our existing support, including, for example, the £10
million community energy fund, and in carrying out the
consultation, to which we have already committed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Opposition spokesman.
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
That was a disappointing and specious defence by the Minister of
his intention not to proceed with these proposals from the other
place. He knows perfectly well what the barriers to developing
community energy are; we have debated them at length during the
passage of the Bill. So I am not sure it is going to take a
forensic panel of inquiry to find out what those details are
before the Government can act on any of these things.
We are on the last lap of the Energy Bill and it is particularly
disappointing that we are hearing what we are hearing today about
this Lords amendment. The Bill, which has been with us in both
Houses for well over a year now, puts into place many of the
essential tools that will enable energy to progress towards a
low-carbon, net zero future. The Opposition have consistently
supported the Bill, while endeavouring during its passage to
strengthen it in its low carbon mission. We have tried to place
into the Bill further elements to make it the best it can be in
pursuit of its low-carbon mission, and there have been some
junctures during its passage when the Minister has endeavoured to
take on board those suggestions for strengthening it, in some
instances by drafting a Government amendment that meets the
purport of our amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for
those changes to the Bill and for the collegiate way in which the
Bill has been debated and decided upon.
However, there are exceptions to that, one of which is in front
of us today. As the Minister states, it relates to community and
local energy, which I am sure Members will agree is and will be
an important part of the future low carbon energy landscape. It
has the potential to make a serious contribution to our local
carbon arsenal of plant, while being funded and supported by the
community in which that plant is situated, making it easier to
develop and able to restore the benefits of its operation to the
community itself.
Labour has committed to providing strong support for community
energy, including the assistance of Great British Energy, the
company we propose to set up to support the development of local
low carbon plant with community energy schemes. The potential for
such schemes to contribute to the overall installation of low
carbon systems in the UK is immense, with perhaps 8 GW of install
capacity added to the national stock through such local schemes.
I remind the House that that is getting on towards the equivalent
capacity of three nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point
C.
2.30pm
We know that at the moment there are substantial legislative and
administrative obstacles to the development of community energy,
most notably the ability of community schemes to trade their
output effectively. During the passage of the Bill, we tried to
introduce clauses to address those problems. Indeed, when the
Bill first came to the House from another place, their lordships
had inserted clauses to the Bill to that effect. Unfortunately,
the Government deleted them during the Bill’s Commons
passage.
As I am sure the House will appreciate, their lordships quite
rightly feel very strongly about the issue, so they attempted to
restore those passages to the Bill when it returned to the Lords
for ping pong. However, again, just recently, the Government
rejected those proposals.
(Wokingham) (Con)
One of the barriers will be the shortage of grid and cable
capacity to link into. Is the hon. Gentleman envisaging some kind
of privileged access or some solution to the grid shortage?
Dr Whitehead
That is not quite the subject of our debate, but the right hon.
Member can see that we envisage an energetic and far-reaching
proposal to develop the grid in such a way that those grid
shortages are overcome, so that the grid is able to service the
low carbon economy in the way we would all want it to do. In the
context of what we are discussing, I remind the right hon. Member
that this would be about distributed grids at a local level,
rather than the national high-level grids. We need to take
further action to strengthen and sort out grids at that
level.
The Lords clearly continue to feel strongly about this issue; as
we can see, they have sent back to us today a modified version of
the original amendment, requiring the Government to consult on
changes to assist community energy and, importantly, to set a
timeline for proposals to be brought forward to remove barriers
to the development of community energy.
Of course, there are others in this House who feel strongly about
this issue. The proposals that the Lords have now twice tried to
have inserted into the Bill are essentially the wording of a
group called Power for the People, which suggested wording for a
community energy enabling Bill for which it campaigned to secure
signed-up support from parliamentarians. It did indeed secure
substantial support from parliamentarians who feel strongly on
the issue of community energy. Some 325 Members signed up in
support, including 130 Conservative Members and, perhaps most
remarkably, 22 members of the Government, including six Treasury
Ministers, the present Chancellor and the Minister himself, as I
often seek to remind him. There is no lack of support in the
House for the principles and practice of community energy.
The Lords amendment seeks to acknowledge and further that support
by putting forward very reasonable and, one might have thought,
pretty non-contentious wording to add to the Bill. It is
inexplicable to me that the Government should seek to resist
these proposals in the way they have. Yes, they will say, as the
Minister has said, that they have set up a community energy fund
of £10 million over two years, which is welcome, and they have
verbally indicated that, at some stage, there will be a
consultation on barriers to supply, but there are no timelines
for that and no commitment to move positively forward from it.
That is what this amendment seeks to put right.
As I have said, the Minister appears already to be a signed-up
supporter of community energy action, and I would fear for his
own emotional wellbeing if he were forced today to perform
another policy backflip and acquiesce in yet another Government
repudiation of themselves in rejecting this latest Lords
amendment. Instead, let us end the extended passage of the Bill
on a high note, and all around the House agree on both the
importance of community energy and the measures we will need to
take to ensure it thrives in the future.
I rise in support of the amendment. It is very similar to an
amendment that I tabled during the previous stage of the Bill in
the Commons. I echo the comments that have been made about the
amendment being uncontentious. It calls for additional
consultation—if the Government want me to do that, I will do it
myself for the community energy groups.
The net zero review held several roundtables with a number of
community energy groups across the country. Indeed, they were one
of the reasons why pillar 4 in the final report, “Mission Zero:
Independent Review of Net Zero”, was
“Net Zero and the Community”.
One of the key findings of the review was that over half of all
net zero decisions will need to be taken not by Government or
Parliament, but outside this Chamber. We can turbocharge our
transition towards net zero if we can empower and support more
community energy groups to take the action that needs to be
taken.
Indeed, the only single wind turbine that has been built in the
United Kingdom in the past year has been delivered through
community energy. I am proud that it is in my home city of
Bristol. Ambition Lawrence Weston has seen its 4.25 MW turbine
built and it will now power 3,500 homes for the community energy
project. The £4 million to pay for the project was raised by the
group—it did not come cap in hand to Government—and now it will
see an economic return of £140,000 a year as a result of the
energy that will be sold to the grid. That is just one example of
the myriad examples of net zero projects that demonstrate the
economic opportunity that net zero can provide.
In Bristol, we also have the Bristol City Leap, which is a result
of a £7 million investment from Bristol City Council. There has
been £424 million of inward investment from the American company
Ameresco Ltd to decarbonise the city’s district heat network.
Community energy points the way for demonstrating that net zero
is not a cost, despite what some may say, but an opportunity. We
must seize that opportunity now, not just to tackle the climate
crisis or reach our nationally determined contribution for 2030,
because net zero is about 2030 not just about 2050. We cannot
keep kicking the can down the road, somehow suggesting we are
going to meet our carbon budgets. Meeting them now, today, is
absolutely vital to ensure we can meet our climate commitments in
future carbon budgets.
Community energy is here and now. We can get on with delivering
net zero with the tools and technologies we have, and, above all,
with the people we have—individuals and communities across the
country. Community Energy England has 220 groups, a third of
which would like to build onshore wind turbines, like Ambition
Lawrence Weston. They want to get on with it. They are not often
being paid to do this; they do it because they recognise what
they can return to their communities. As a Conservative who
believes in the power of local communities, we as a Government
should be supporting local communities to the hilt to deliver on
energy action.
When we look at the future of the grid, everything points to the
fact that creating flexibilities on the edge of the grid enhances
our energy security, allows us to return energy to the grid,
frees up energy capacity elsewhere, and frees up our demand on
oil and gas elsewhere. This is a no-brainer. I shall support
Lords amendment 274B if it is pushed to a vote, although I will
not push it to a vote myself. Nevertheless, it is vital that we
send a clear message not just that we are committed to the net
zero pathway—because it is the right and the economically
important thing to do—but that we recognise that, when it comes
to net zero, we need a big bang moment. We need to create little
platoons of individuals and communities that are going out there
writing their own net zero narratives and stories. For that
reason, I will be supporting this Lords amendment today.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesman.
(Angus) (SNP)
“Specious”, said His Majesty’s Opposition spokesperson about the
arguments against this amendment, to which I would add, having
listened to the Minister’s defence of the Government’s position
on community energy, that it was also one of the more tendentious
arguments that we have heard in this Chamber. I am not convinced
that the Minister is absolutely fully signed up to that which he
has been put out today to defend. I think he knows the importance
of community generation and he is not content with the feet
dragging that his Government are forcing him to come here to
defend. This is another extremely negative decision by a
Government who show no let-up in their disdain for community
ambition for disaggregated generation infrastructure, or, in
fact, for the climate. If we contrast that ambition with the
Tories’ now messianic devotion to the cult of nuclear, we see
that next year everyone across these islands will be well shot of
them, and nowhere more so will that be clear than in the energy
space.
Lords amendment 274B is a perfectly sensible ambition. It is a
pragmatic amendment by their lordships. It is balanced and
deliverable, works with the grain of local ambition, and is
destined to unlock significant value in the green transition. It
would unlock local enterprise and it would unlock value-add in
the real economy and promote community wellbeing. There is
nothing not to recommend about this ambition; it is quite clear
that it has positives for the people and for our communities. It
is no wonder, then, that this Tory Government will reject it out
of hand. They have no interest in empowering the people or
powering the green revolution. They would rather throw billions
on to our energy bills to pay for nuclear, while they proscribed
onshore wind in England up until September this year, leaving
Scotland to do all the heavy lifting as usual.
Why will these Tories not follow the SNP Scottish Government’s
lead in this priority? The Scottish Government’s community and
renewable energy scheme promotes community energy ownership
across Scotland. CARES continues to help communities engage,
participate in and benefit from the transition to net zero. Since
2010, CARES has offered advice and support to more than 900
organisations and assisted in the delivery of 600 community and
locally owned renewable projects throughout Scotland, offering
funding in the process of £58 million. Just to clarify, that is
just in Scotland, which rather puts in the shade the £10 million
on offer from the English Government to English community
generation—whenever that happens. CARES accelerates progress
towards the Scottish Government’s target of 2 GW of renewable
energy to be locally or community owned by 2030. The scheme
assists in the delivery of both the Scottish Government’s energy
strategy and heat in buildings strategy through the provision of
loan finance, grant funding and specialist advice.
In Scotland, we see a Government of the people working with the
people for their shared ambitions, but here in Westminster we see
only the veneer of an Administration masking the infighting,
bitter division and self-interest of that Tory party.
The Scottish Government’s community good practice principles,
which have been widely adopted across the renewables industry,
promote the provision of community benefits at a national level.
They promote the equivalent of £5,000 per installed megawatt per
annum, index-linked for the life of the project. Over £22.8
million has been paid out in community benefits to Scottish
communities in the 12 months since August 2021. England has a
very similar scheme but—and it is a big Tory-shaped but—as these
funds are in the greater part principally born of onshore wind
development, and the Tories introduced a de facto ban on onshore
wind in 2015, English communities have lost out on millions and
millions of pounds in community funding thanks to this
dysfunctional UK/English Government.
2.45pm
The Government’s contorted priorities directly increase reliance
on insecure and costly gas generation, and they are continuing to
persist with the grotesque parody that they are on the side of
working people by rowing back further on measures that would save
households money and protect our planet by backtracking on home
heating, insulation and electric vehicle targets. The Tories are
busy damaging communities, damaging investor confidence and
damaging the planet.
In the midst of an energy price crisis, when low-cost, clean,
home-produced energy has never been more important, there is
enormous potential across these islands for growth in small-scale
renewable energy generation—especially by community groups that
can provide cheaper, greener power and then reinvest the profits
locally. Community energy schemes currently generate a mere 0.5%
of the UK’s electricity—it is depressing. This could grow
twentyfold in 10 years, according to studies by the Environmental
Audit Committee, but only if we get action from a Westminster
Government. We must also bear in mind how much of that 0.5% of
community generation is thanks to the foresight and financial
investment of the Scottish Government—investment that the
Scottish Government must find from elsewhere in their budget,
because if the English Government do not spend it, it is not
consequentialised.
That energy could power 2.2 million homes and save 2.5 million
tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, while creating over 30,000 jobs.
As Members on the Government’s own Benches are pointing out,
these things are not an impediment to economic growth, but a
driver of economic growth. Furthermore, they would reduce
dependence on energy imports, all the while reducing reliance on
foreign energy.
A functioning UK Government would embrace this remarkable
potential, accept the Lords amendment and seek to enable rather
than disable local supply. The regulatory barriers that prevent
community energy schemes from selling power to local customers
are incongruous with both our climate emergency and the scale of
current energy prices. The new £10 million community energy fund
is nothing but a paltry smokescreen, which will not scratch the
surface and is a veil simply for this Tory Government’s inaction
and hostility to the ambition of the people and their drive for
net zero. The Government cannot hold a candle to the Scottish
Government’s record in this area, but it is high time they at
least tried to do so.
(Bath) (LD)
Let us remind ourselves what Lords amendment 247B is about.
Within 18 months of the Act being passed, the Secretary of State
would be required to carry out a consultation and publish a
report on the barriers preventing the development of community
energy schemes. It would also require the Government to respond
and bring forward proposals to remove the barriers preventing the
development of community energy schemes within six months of the
consultation closing. That is the bare minimum that the
Government could do. It would at least move the issue forward,
and yet the Government still put forward a motion to disagree
with it.
The Government say that they have already committed to consult on
the barriers to local supply, but we still have not been given a
date when that will actually happen. The Lords amendment would
stop the Government’s current policy of dither and delay and
require them to get on with taking community energy schemes
forward.
Ultimately, the Government should not need to consult, because
they are already well aware of what barriers face the sector;
Community Energy England has told them repeatedly over the last
five years. It is really disappointing, because there is even an
all-party parliamentary group for community energy. Officials
have engaged with the APPG, yet nothing has happened because the
Government, despite warm words, are not really committed to
community energy.
In 2021, the Environmental Audit Committee published a series of
recommendations to encourage community energy. The only
recommendation taken forward so far is the community energy fund,
and even that does not yet have a launch date. I hope that the
Minister will tell me when the launch date will be. When will we
see the fund for community energy?
We are in the middle of an energy crisis. Bills have skyrocketed.
Access to cheap, clean, home-produced energy has never been more
vital. We need to secure our energy supply, protect consumers and
reach net zero. As we have always said in the debate about
reaching net zero, we need to take people with us. That is not
about delaying targets, as the Government have just done, but
about encouraging people to walk the difficult journey to net
zero. Community energy does exactly that. Why are the Government
not supporting it with all their might? Why are the Government
not even supporting the Lords amendment? It is the bare
minimum.
Community energy has the potential to power 2.2 million homes and
save 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.
All it needs is a Government who give it the support that it
deserves. I have seen at first hand the benefits that community
energy can bring. In my Bath constituency, Bath and West
Community Energy has installed enough renewables to power 4,500
homes. It has invested the money that it has earned back into my
local community, donating nearly £330,000 to support
environmental and fuel poverty schemes. That is what community
energy can do. What is there not to support? Why are the
Government not committed to doing all that they can to ensure
that community energy projects can be delivered?
rose—
Unfortunately, the Government are unwilling to see the potential
of community energy. Community energy schemes currently generate
just 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. That is because—we know all
this; we have said it many times—the financial, technical and
operational requirements involved in becoming a licensed supplier
put initial costs at more than £1 million. That is a massive risk
for any new start-up or small scheme. Any community energy
projects such as the one in Bath can exist only because it has
reached a certain size. That is one of the problems.
The Government are aware of that fact, but voted to remove Lords
amendments to rectify it. The Government need to start matching
their supportive words about community energy with action. The
most effective step that they could take would be to enable local
supply and remove the regulatory barriers that prevent community
energy schemes from selling their power to local customers. That
could include a community right to connect to the grid ahead of
commercial projects that deliver little or no social and
community benefit. I am sure that I have answered the question
that the right hon. Member for Wokingham () was about to ask.
Community energy schemes are ready to provide clean, green energy
that helps local communities. They are not asking for a huge
amount of public money, just for the Government to stop blocking
the system. In this time of energy uncertainty, having a reliable
local supplier can only be positive. I fully support Lords
amendment 274B to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on
community energy. I urge everyone in this House to do the
same.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this
afternoon’s debate. I will first respond to some of the comments
made by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Angus
(). I know that he does not like
it very much, and would like it if it were not the case, but he
is absolutely wrong and I have to correct him: this is not the
English Government; this is the British Government. We are the
Government of the entire United Kingdom—a United Kingdom of which
Scotland remains a part and, if the opinion polls are anything to
go by, will continue to remain a part of for quite some time.
The hon. Member has an obsession with decrying the nuclear
industry as something that the Tories alone are obsessed with.
Tell that to the Governments of France, Sweden, Finland, Italy,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Canada, the United States
of America and more, who are reinvesting and restarting their own
civil nuclear industry, as is the Labour Welsh Government, who
are very much in favour of further investment in, and development
of, nuclear. He raised the lack of funding for community energy
projects; £10 million over two years is an incredibly generous
offer. That is alongside other UK growth funding such as the UK
shared prosperity fund, which community energy groups can access
by working in partnership with their local authorities.
The hon. Member for Bath () asked when the community
energy fund will be launched. It will be launched as soon as
possible. We are aiming to launch applications to the fund as
soon as we physically can.
My opposite number, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr
Whitehead), is right that we have had a productive and
constructive relationship when it comes to discussion of the
Bill. The 72 hours that we spent together in Committee were
beneficial to everybody’s health, I am sure, and to the
development of Government policy on this matter. We have come
some way from where we were when we started discussing how we
would support community energy. He rightly praised the role that
the sector has played during the passage of the Bill. The
community energy sector has been incredibly receptive to our
commitment to a consultation and to the £10 million fund.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Did he notice that
the hon. Member for Bath () would not give way? She was
arguing—the typical position of her party—that it knew all the
answers before the consultation, yet it still wanted a very long,
drawn-out consultation to avoid doing the answers.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also noticed
that—
Will the Minister give way?
Two seconds. I will respond to the first intervention before I
give way to the hon. Lady. I also noticed that she managed to
answer a question that had not even been asked by my right hon.
Friend.
The amendment also says that the Government should respond to the
barriers and put forward proposals. That is really what we want
to know: what is the response to any consultation? The Government
have failed to give any response to that.
We cannot respond to a consultation that has not been launched
yet. We are in the process right now of working with the
community energy contact group. In fact, it has already met. Work
is under way right now to develop the consultation, identify what
the barriers to market are, and get out there and support the
community energy sector, as the Government are determined to
do.
Will the Minister give way?
Yes, of course—I am delighted to give way.
The Minister is very kind. He was re-emphasising the importance
of the £10 million community energy investment that he is making
in England over two years. The Scottish Government have been
investing £5.5 million every year for the last 13 years. If he
thinks that his investment is outstanding, how would he
characterise the Scottish Government’s investment?
I welcome all Governments’ investment in support of community
energy projects across the United Kingdom, but this is a sharp
change from the last time the hon. Member came to this place,
when he was decrying the fact that we were not extending
community energy packages across the United Kingdom. I think I
had to inform and educate him that there was already a community
benefits package in Scotland, operated by the Scottish
Government. Yes, there are problems with that scheme, and we will
learn from the difficulties that it has faced. That is why I am
so sure that the scheme that we are launching—the £10 million to
support community energy projects the length and breadth of the
country—is the right one, working in tandem with the funds that
are already available north of the border for community energy
projects in my constituency and, indeed, in his.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke about previous
amendments on community energy. We have been clear that they
would not provide the best outcomes for consumers. A right to
local supply already exists, and Ofgem has existing flexibility
to award supply licences that are restricted to certain
geographies. We continue to believe that it is a commercial
matter left to suppliers.
Lastly, I turn to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood
(). Six months may be too
soon, frankly, to adequately analyse the outcomes of the
consultation. It must fully take into consideration wider
interdependencies in the energy system. We will always aim to
respond in a timely manner, but I would not want to put a strict
timeframe in legislation.
The Government support our route to net zero. The Government are
taking action to ensure that we are more energy secure and energy
independent, and the Government are supporting community energy
projects the length and breadth of the country. For that reason,
we should disagree to the Lords amendment before us.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment
274B.
[Division 346
The House divided:
Ayes
293
Noes
181
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 18 October 2023 at
12.00am](/Commons/2023-10-18/division/3625D6F5-DDC5-4F27-B09B-6ACA0ADC7592/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Lords amendment 274B disagreed to.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be
assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment
274B;
That , , , , , and be members of the
Committee;
That be the Chair of the
Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and
communicated to the Lords.
|
