Clause 13
Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill
6:15 pm
Ian McCartney (Minister of State (Trade & Investment), Department of Trade and Industry; Makerfield, Labour)
Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 would change the scope of the new council’s duty to investigate disconnection or the threat of disconnection of a consumer’s gas or electricity supply, to cover the circumstances in which there would be a reasonable probability that a threat to disconnect would be made. What constitutes a threat? That varies from supplier to supplier. Some mention disconnection at a very early stage; some do so at a very late stage and allow the consumer to build up a considerable backlog of debt. It is important that the new council should use its discretion on the issue to ensure a security of supply in almost all circumstances. Without that, other problems will arise. It is important that those who deal with such complaints do so with regard to the circumstances.
I shall give an example of something that regularly happens to me as a constituency MP. Someone makes contact and says that they are being threatened with disconnection. First, how do they know that they have been threatened? Have they received a notice? What form does the threat take? They say, “Well, I haven’t paid my bill.” There needs to be more than that. There has to be a linkage; if there is not, all that will happen is a huge paper chase. We have to use advocates who are specifically able to deal with people who are vulnerable to disconnection or a threat to disconnect. Such advocates’ resources and time should be usedto secure an arrangement that gives effect to the continuation of supply for the vulnerable consumer.
The amendments are not needed. A threat to disconnect is already covered in clause 13(1), which obliges the council to investigate a complaint to decide on the appropriate action to avoid disconnection, when appropriate. The amendments would place an undue burden on the council, which would have to assess in the case of each complaint whether there was a reasonable probability of a threat to disconnect. No risk assessment would have to be made; no evidence would have to be provided—only someone making contact and saying, “I may be at risk.” That would take up a disproportionate amount of time, which would, as I said, be more usefully employed in investigating complaints about actual or threatened disconnection on the basis of evidence that such a thing existed under clause 13(1).
If vulnerable consumers were fearful that a threat to disconnect might have been made, they would be covered by the provisions in clause 12, which empowers the new council to investigate any matter concerning gas, electricity, postal services—and, in future, water—when the consumer is vulnerable. Accepting the amendments would offer no benefits to general consumers. The hon. Member for Solihull tabled them—the phrase “belt and braces” comes to mind—to ensure that in all circumstances, irrespective of any evidence, the NCC should put resources at the disposal of the person concerned. I do not agree with that; that is not the role of an advocacy body.
For example, if someone simply made contact with the supplier and said, “I have had a phone call telling me that you are going to disconnect.” How many calls would have to be made, and what proportion would state that disconnection was going to take place? The relevant NCC advocate may have to deal with 50or 60 actual disconnections; I should rather they concentrated on them than on those who have no evidence whatever other than a concern or fear. I do not criticise people with concerns or fears but there needs to be an ability in the system to make a proper risk assessment and use the resources effectively, particularly for those who are under threat of disconnection and require advocacy to make sure that it does not happen.