Member

The problem with Amendments 66 and 87 is that Parliament will be involved in the process of making the direction when the focus of Parliament ought to be on the effectiveness of the use of the direction power. Amendments 66 and 87 would allow a debate on the power of direction and, in theory, Amendment 87 would allow Parliament to stop the direction from being made. I am not clear, however, what that would achieve. I suggest that it is far better to interrogate the Minister after the power of direction has been given—which will obviously be possible because, under the clause, the Minister is required to lay the direction before Parliament—but then, importantly, interrogate the Minister again on how well his intervention in the affairs of Great British Energy has worked out. That is real accountability, as opposed to going through the motions of bringing the Minister to the Dispatch Box.