Clause
113
Stopping
supplies of gas or
electricity
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
The clause concerns an issue that we come across
fairly often: people who have their gas or electricity supply turned
off. The water service is a linked utility. Those used to be public
utilities, but they are now private. The clause is about the process
that would in certain circumstances control when supplies could be
turned off, and it applies to non-business debtors during periods of
protection.
My question is simple. It is
partly a DCA-type question and partly a DTI-type one. Just as we now
say that people cannot be evicted from their homes without the sanction
of a court, we could equally reasonably argue that the electricity, gas
or water supply to a domestic property should not be turned off without
such sanction. Can the Minister assist me by saying whether she and her
colleagues have thought about that argument in the context of this
measure? Would they consider introducing such an approach by tabling an
amendment on Report, and would such a move beled by another
Department or in consultation with other Departments? It seems to me
that we have an opportunity to try to do something that would prevent a
lot of desperate, and sometimes unsatisfactory, scrambling
around.
Let me make
two last points. First, I am aware that codes of practice apply in such
circumstances, but sometimes they do not work, and I am also aware that
there is good practice, which does work. In addition, of course we know
that people abuse the system. Secondly, I have often found that such
issues can be dealt with by agreeing with the provider a register of
people in a community who are vulnerable. For example, when people
become of pensionable age,they could register so that special
procedures were undertaken. After many years, however, I have not so
far found a foolproof system of protecting the vulnerable from having
their water, electricity or gas cut off in certain circumstances. The
situation is even harder now with the multiplicity of providers in this
privatised world of utilities.
I would be grateful to hear
from the Minister whether that broader issue has been considered and
whether favourable consideration would be given on Report to an
amendment that sought to give the same entitlement to utilities as
applies in a tenancy or
occupancy.
Vera
Baird:
There is a huge amount of difficulty in defining
people who are vulnerable in order to set up any type of register at
all. In this context, we are countenancing a person who is in a period
of protection or is in the currency of a debt repayment plan, which
restricts the ability of a qualifying creditor—a creditor with a
qualifying debt—to take any action at all to recover their debt.
A series of restrictions bite on those qualifying creditors, and they
are, as I have said already to the hon. Member for Braintree, two sides
of the coin. The debtor will pay and the creditors will forbear. Quite
separate from that structure, there are rules that stop domestic
utility suppliers disconnecting services. They must not do that here
when they are a qualifying creditor, as is laid down clearly in the
provision. More generally, people cannot cut water off without the
courts’ consent and I am reasonably sure that the same applies
to any utilities, but I am not certain. However, that is a broader
point. In this case, utilities that are qualifying suppliers must not
take that action to deal a
debtor.
Mr.
David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I was going to make a
speech, but I shall make my point in an intervention. I am intrigued
about why we are talking about gas and electricity, not water. My hon.
and learned Friend may have an easy explanation, but it is
my understanding that it is now virtually impossible
to disconnect someone for not paying their water bill. Therefore, I
would be interested to know what the differences are. It is still
possible to disconnect someone for not paying for gas and electricity,
so there is a disparity. It would be interesting to know why no
reference is made to water in the clause.
Vera
Baird:
That is undoubtedly a very good point to reflect
on. It is nearly impossible to disconnect someone’s water. My
noble Friend Baroness Ashton talked in the other place—it was in
a different connection, but linked to the Bill—about the need to
negotiate and to engage water suppliers, because they do not have much
recourse to recover their debts, as they never can disconnect. In some
circumstances—I am not sure when or whether it is with or
without a court order—the other utilities can do that. In
general, that is an interesting question, and one that we should
consider. Within the confines of the Bill, however, we can prevent the
gas or electricity supplier from cutting off supplies while the person
is protected because they are paying under the arrangement they have
come to with their creditors. From the point of view of the Bill, the
situation is rock solid, but more widely, my hon. Friend the Member for
Stroud is quite right and we should look at the
issue.
Simon
Hughes:
That was helpful. Perhaps the Minister
could deal with these points in writing after today’s sitting.
First, is there a need to put water in that context? Secondly, on a
wider question, is a court order and a court appearance necessary for
each of the utilities? If so, can we have reassurance about that? If
not, perhaps we can come back to it on
Report.
Vera
Baird:
I do not want to be dragged into offering more than
I realistically can offer within the confines of the Bill, just because
I am a good-natured, soft liberal person. I have given very strong
reassurance about clause 133, which manifestly protects people in such
a situation. I rather doubt whether, within the confines of the Bill,
we have any possibility of thoroughly getting to grips with all the
reasoning behind the disparity that my hon. Friend the Member for
Stroud set out for us. However, I will look at the matter and have a
conversation with the hon. Gentleman in due
course.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 113
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
11
4 to 12
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
124
The
supervising
authority
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Simon
Hughes:
I have one question. The clause sets out who the
supervising authority is—an issue to which the hon. Member for
Braintree referred earlier. Subsection (1) says that it is the Lord
Chancellor or anyone authorised by the Lord Chancellor. Whom does the
Department have in mind? We went through this last year with regard to
some legislation brought forward by the Department. There was an
interim arrangement involving Ministers or civil servants, before a
transfer to the Legal Services Commission. It would be interesting to
know whom Ministers have in mind as an agency—it might be
individual or whatever—both on an interim basis and in the long
term.
Vera
Baird:
We do not have anyone in mind,other than
the Lord Chancellor, at present. We are introducing clause 124 with an
eye to the possibility of the role being delegated in the future. If
that ever occurred, it would be likeliest to go to a judicial
officeholder, but not inconceivable that it would go to some existing
national advice board, such as the citizens advice bureaux. At present,
we do not have anyone to whom we intend to delegate the
role.
Simon
Hughes:
I am grateful. I assume that when the time comes
there will be the usual sorts of consultation about the appropriate way
forward.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 124
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
125 to 128
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Michael Foster (Worcester) (Lab): On a point of order,
Mr. Bercow. Due to the excellent progress that we have made
under your chairmanship this afternoon, I beg to move that the
Committee do now
adjourn.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Foster.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Three o’clock till
Tuesday 27 March at
a quarter to Eleven
o’clock.
| 
