ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METER CHARGES). (Hansard, 20 June 1939)

Mr. De la Bère

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the charges which may be made by electricity undertakings in respect of the hire of electricity meters, to amend the Electricity Supply Acts, 1882 to 1936; and for purposes connected therewith. The Bill seeks to remove a disability and a source of irritation and expense. It has long been a practice of electricity undertakers in this country to make a charge for the rental of the meters by which the electricity they supply is measured, and this charge has inflicted considerable hardship for a number of years on many of the less prosperous of the consumers of electricity. The Bill is designed to spur those undertakers who are lagging behind in the matter of abolishing these charges. Many of the undertakings in this country have already either lessened the charge made for meter rents or done away with them altogether, but there are many less enlightened ones who have not done so. Very little attention has been paid by the legislator to meter rents, though the Meter Bill of 1936 ensured the examination and verification of meters for the protection of consumers. In 1930 the Electricity Commission appointed a committee to consider the uniformity of electricity charges and tariffs, and they reported as follows: The committee are also of the opinion that it is not unreasonable for supply authorities to recoup themselves for the hire of meters by charging consumers who are on flat rates appropriate quarterly meter rentals; it is expedient, however, in the case of consumers who have adopted the optional multi-part 2026 tariff that meter rentals should not be charged as a separate item, but should be included in the fixed charge portion of the tariff. It would have been better if that committee, instead of consisting of half a dozen representatives of the supply interests had included at least one representative of the consumers. It is one of the most remarkable facts that there was no one on the committee to represent the interests of the consumers, and those who represented the interests of the supply companies were enabled to put their case forward without any opposition. As it is, their conclusion seems to be somewhat paradoxical, because they suggest that supply authorities are justified in charging for meters where the consumers are on the flat rates, but that the meter rent should not be charged as a separate item where the consumer is on a multi-part tariff. This is paradoxical, because the flat rate is the most expensive, and surely if they admit that it is possible to include the charge in the multi-part tariff it is also possible to include it in the flat rate. I suggest that meter rents are entirely wrong and not in accord with the usual practice of business. The grocer and the butcher do not charge for the scales with which they weigh out their goods; the retail distributor does not charge for the carriage of goods to the customer. Such charges are regarded as "overheads," and so I suggest they should be regarded in the electricity supply industry. As a matter of fact the incidence of meter rents works out very unfairly in many cases, and there are often considerable hardships imposed upon consumers of limited means. Meter rents may be a small matter with the large consumer, but they loom very largely in the account of the small consumer.

Let us examine the facts. A good English meter costs approximately 30s. installed. The supplier charges a rent which is usually 2s. 6d. a quarter, but sometimes more, so that the capital cost of the meter is wiped out in three years and frequently in considerably less time. One would imagine that, having acquired the whole cost of the meter, the suppliers would be content, but in fact many of them continue to charge, so that the meter very frequently is paid for over and over again. This matter is more flagrant and more serious than one might imagine. Let me give the House one instance. A woman, resident in London, paid altogether over £20 for the rent of 2027 her meter. Then she objected to the supply company and told them that the meter must have been paid for at least 10 times over, and they informed her that if she declined to continue the rent payment they would discontinue her supply of current. She is still paying it, and must continue to do so indefinitely. That is not in accordance with our ideas of fair play in this country. If we look into the accounts of the supply undertakings we see that, apart from the "revenue from supply of current" there is an item "revenue from meter rents and other charges." This item is often considerable, though how much of it appertains to meters it is impossible to say.

I have already said that meter rents press most heavily on the less fortunate members of the community. Few of them have any idea whatever as to what they are paying in respect of the rental of the meters. They are not given a definite sum per quarter to pay, as is the consumer who rents a quarterly meter. This Bill has only three Clauses. It is on the main Clause that I have given this explanation. I submit that every consumer has a right to know exactly what he is paying and that the poorer consumer should not be penalised by higher charges, which in practice he is compelled to pay in advance. The way out of all this difficulty is to legislate for the removal of the meter rent as being quite out of keeping with the ordinary practice of business. For these reasons I ask leave to introduce the Bill, which will be welcomed by thousands of consumers throughout the country.