It is a pleasure, Mr Hosie, to have you chair our Committee, which I intend to be brief.

On Second Reading, I set out the cases that form the basis for sponsoring the Bill, and I feel no need to go through them again, except to say that when one of my constituents approached National Grid with a problem that was unresolved and said, “I’m going to take it to my Member of Parliament”, he was told, “Don’t bother. He won’t be able to do anything.” Well, here we are today; and we will see who is able to make changes and who is not. Generally, I find that threatening Members of Parliament, whether directly or indirectly, is an unwise course of action.

Apart from the cases, there was the principle: one of the largest listed utility companies in the world cannot be judge and jury when it comes to compensation issues relating to our constituents. At the weekend, in my constituency I had a new case of potential flooding, which had been warned about by local farmers, who had said that if National Grid did not put in adequate draining for one of the access roads, it would result in flooding on a new estate. Sadly, in the heavy rains we saw in recent weeks, that is exactly what we got. Again, that shows why we need to have this sort of compensation arrangement.

I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for the cross-party support the Bill has received, and to the Minister and his officials for the amount of work they have done to ensure that we dealt with all the points and issues arising from Second Reading. In particular, I point out a number of issues to the Committee. First, it will now be clear—through the amendments to the Bill—that it relates to all electricity-related, land acquisition cases. That includes compulsory purchase and access agreements, which might not have been clear previously.

Secondly, the tests we set to make the Bill acceptable have all been met: the process will be accessible without undue difficulty or expense; the processes will be operated in a way that is independent of the parties to the dispute, so that one party is not judge and jury, as at present; and determinations will be enforceable. There is no point in having rights in law if they are not enforceable, as we discussed in this room during the passage of what is now the Down Syndrome Act 2022. In other words, the four tests of accessibility, affordability, independence and enforceability are all met in the Bill.

I have a few brief questions to ask the Minister to ensure complete clarity. Will he give an assurance that the Bill will apply to current, ongoing disputes that are not settled at the point of commencement of the Act? We are not asking for retrospection, which is a legal principle that I generally find to be abhorrent, but for cases that are not concluded when the legislation comes into effect. Will the Minister give us an update on the intended timescale for the completion of the Government scheme after the commencement of the Act? In other words, how long will it be before our constituents will see the applicability of the points that I have raised? Finally, does the Bill apply to Scotland, and in what circumstances? Those are my last remaining unresolved—or perhaps unclear—questions.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his team for getting clarity, and a Bill that is widely accepted in the House as necessary and in a form that the House can accept.