| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Clause 1
'(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the coming into force of this section and from time to time thereafter, make regulations prescribing the procedures to be followed in the event of a proposed disconnection of supply by an electricity company, in particular in relation to households with—
(a) customers of pensionable age,
(b) adults or children who are disabled or have a long-term illness, or
(c) children aged five or under.
(2) Regulations under this section shall, in particular, make provision about the role of the Social Services Departments of local authorities in relation to proposals for disconnection.
(3) Regulations under this section shall, in particular, set out the administrative procedures to be followed as part of suppliers' final licence obligation.
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) Subsection (4) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.
(6) The duty to make regulations containing provision authorised by this section is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 132, line 26 [Clause 173], at end insert—
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1345
'(1A) It shall be a duty of every supplier of gas to ensure that the standing charge, if applied, and the unit cost of gas supplied by means of a pre-payment meter shall be no more than the standard charges applied to customers purchasing gas by means of quarterly bills.'.
No. 49, in page 133, line 16 [Clause 173], at end insert—
'(2A) It shall be a duty of every electricity supplier to ensure that the standing charge, if applied, and the unit cost of electricity supplied by means of a pre-payment meter shall be no more than the standard charges applied to customers purchasing electricity by means of quarterly bills.'.
Miss McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the new clause; it is a timely proposal and one on which the Under-Secretary will, I think, look favourably—if he can drag his attention back to the business of the House for a moment. The consultation process undertaken by the Government threw up several ideas, and we have drawn on them. The National Consumer Council and some other non-governmental voluntary organisations, notably Age Concern, expressed concern about the rate of disconnection, which continues to grow unacceptably.
Our proposals would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations setting out procedures to be followed in the event of a proposed disconnection. The National Consumer Council, Ofgem and the Energy Retail Association are in agreement that such procedures should apply in particular to households where there are
"customers of pensionable age . . . adults or children who are disabled or have a long-term illness, or . . . children aged five or under".
Ofgem and the Energy Retail Association should be invited to revise the proposals to prevent the disconnection, at any time, of households where anyone is in those categories.
Our new clause also sets out the role of local authority social services departments in relation to proposals for disconnection. That would offer the Government a good opportunity to set out in the Bill those provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 relating to disconnections, bearing in mind the tragic case of the elderly couple whose electricity supply was disconnected. Rightly or wrongly, the social services department used the provisions of the Act so as not to intervene.
We have set out what we believe is the best definition of the term "vulnerable customer". It would be interesting if the Minister were to say what definition his Department currently uses. Our understanding is that there is no statutory definition. I understand that the Energy Retail Association proposes to use a definition along the following lines:
"A vulnerable customer at risk from disconnection will be unable to safeguard his or her personal welfare or the welfare of any children in the household, and will be in need of care and attention by reason of age or infirmity, or suffering from chronic illness or mental disorder, or substantially handicapped by being disabled."
I could go on much longer, but mindful of the other sets of amendments that we have yet to consider, I simply propose the new clause in the hope that the Minister and the Government will see it as a helpful response to the excellent points made in the consultation
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1346
process by the National Consumer Council and others. It would enable the Government to draft regulations so that there is less scope for disconnection, which leads to tragic consequences, and to set out what the role of local authority social services departments should be.
5.15 pm
Mr. O'Neill: It would be unfortunate if new clause 1 were passed. It would not do very much. To rely on anything that the people who sell electricity are prepared to advocate as a means to protect disadvantaged consumers is rather like asking foxes to make the security arrangements for a chicken coop. The definitions that they have provided are in no way valid. They are nothing like as comprehensive as they should be. It is not for nothing that Energywatch—the consumers' energy protection organisation—rubbished the idea. It is also wrong to suggest that the proposal comes from Ofgem—it does not. Ofgem asked the Energy Retail Association to make proposals that would avoid the possibility of the tragedy to which the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) referred. Ofgem did not sponsor the research or the report; it requested it, and I understand that it has yet to pass judgment on whether to accept it. We have not yet produced our report, but if the hon. Lady had read the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's proceedings on disconnection, she would have seen that the proposal does not enjoy the imprimatur of Ofgem. Ofgem merely asked ERA to produce a report, which it is still considering. As far as I know, ERA does not have too many friends in that area. I am not sure whether the National Consumer Council has a view—it has been cited as having one—but the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, Energywatch, has a view: it does not regard the proposal as satisfactory.
The new clause certainly bears the hallmark of the kind of legislation that the Tories proposed in the 1990s, when they spoke about those people who should be protected. Indeed, under the Gas Act 1995—I was about to say the Gas Bill—they made provision for age and disability, but not for economic disadvantage. They made no provision for the poor. If one group is just as entitled to claim protection from disconnection as the sick and the elderly it is the economically disadvantaged. Frankly, that group is not addressed by the new clause.
When the Under-Secretary responds—if he will give me a minute of his attention—perhaps he will tell us the actual cost of disconnection. I understand that estimates range from £150 to £450 per disconnection, so there is a lot of uncertainty. It is one thing to have a system with a series of protections for people who are vulnerable because of their income, age or physical infirmities, but it is quite another for disconnection to be simply a first resort for some sections of the community. I am not happy at all with the current provision. Anyone involved with fuel poverty in this country—perhaps I should declare an interest as honorary president of Energy Action Scotland, a Scottish charity engaged in trying to eradicate fuel poverty—has little good to say about the proposal in the new clause. As I said, it was considered by the Trade and Industry Committee, which I am fortunate to have the honour of chairing.
Disconnection is one of the most regrettable and unacceptable manifestations of poverty in our society. We heard pious speeches earlier this afternoon about the
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1347
lights going out, but if the lights go out for one poor family, that is just as devastating for them as if it happens to the whole country because of the failure of a Government or an electricity company to invest. [Interruption.] Well, one is as bad as the other, but the new clause contains no reference to the poor. It refers only to people who are physically infirm or elderly. It is far too restrictive and represents a piece of irrelevant opportunism by the Tories. It would not clarify the situation or protect the poor in any way, shape or form. The present arrangements are no better or worse than the proposals. If the hon. Lady had given any thought to the matter, she would have realised that the proposal was a sham put forward by those who make a living from selling electricity. It is an attempt to square their consciences with a tragedy for which they were not responsible—other players were involved.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |