§ 4.21 p.m.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899.The object of the Bill is to repeal Section 27(3) of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, which allows electricity boards to require a deposit in cash or security or guarantee against future supplies. My contention is that the clause is being used in a disgraceful, shameful and inhuman manner by many electricity boards and that because of that the House should remove the legal powers contained in the 1899 Act.Hundreds, and probably thousands, of letters are being sent out by electricity boards to certain of their consumers. The electricity boards are attempting to place an intolerable burden on a section of the community, usually a section least able to bear that burden.
I have evidence that letters are being sent to three classes of user. The first class is consumers who become responsible for the first time for the payment of an electricity account. That usually applies to first-time dwelling purchasers, often young couples who are starting out in life, or to a consumer who moves from one area to another. The second category consists of consumers who have been slow or erratic in payment of their accounts. The third category consists of consumers who have had their supply disconnected and have requested reconnection. I am concerned for all three categories, but particularly for the first two. I have indisputable evidence of many cases, not only in my constituency but in others, in which the law is being used in this disgraceful manner.
In my constituency a woman with three children, who does not owe, and has not owed, the electricity board one penny, but who paid her previous account with some difficulty, within seven days of paying that account had a demand for a deposit for £85 which had to be paid in seven days, otherwise the electricity supply to her home would be cut and she would have to pay reconnection charges. I stress that the woman did not owe one penny of her electricity account when that threat was made.
1525 I could produce evidence from many societies which have written to me confirming that such letters have gone out to many people, particularly in Yorkshire, the North-West and the Midlands. I have letters from several social service departments, the Family Service Unit, the Catholic Children's Rescue Society, the Heatherbank Rights Centre, the Community Relations Council and the Child Poverty Action Group.
The threatening of the disconnection of electricity supplies within seven days unless substantial deposits are placed with the board is the language of dictatorship. It is the language of bureaucratic bullies who sit in ivory towers at our expense and have no knowledge of human experience and poverty.
The people to whom the letters are sent are usually in the lower income groups. The Government have a responsibility to protect those people from such disgraceful conduct. This is a special issue at a time of raging inflation. I know that a great many letters have gone out in the North-West area, and I am indebted to the Sunday Telegraph for the publicity it has given to this matter, which has given me the opportunity to hear of many more cases.
The interest payable on such deposits is autocratically fixed by the electricity board at between 6½ per cent., and 8 per cent., according to the board involved. That percentage figure is derisory and grossly unfair at present interest rates.
The removal of Section 27(3) of the 1899 Act would remove powers from the electricity boards. It would not remove the power of disconnection, which is, equally, causing serious problems to social services departments of local authorities. That has been the subject of another Ten-Minute Rule Bill moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which I supported and voted for.
The Bill is a vitally important one which will affect hundreds of poorer families. I am not seeking to excuse people who do not pay their accounts properly, but I know that quarterly accounts cause budgetary problems for poorer people. If they have to choose between spending money and saving it to pay a future account many people feel 1526 they have no alternative but to spend it on essentials. People who do not understand that basic fact have little idea of how working families exist.
The electricity boards already have a remedy for dealing with cases of bad payment or non-payment; namely, by the installation of prepayment meters. They should use that remedy rather than the bullying methods they are now using. The disconnection of supplies, especially when electricity is the sole means of supplying heat and/or light is a serious step to take. To take it when there are arrears is one thing, but to take it when there are no arrears is another. The reluctance of boards to install meters is well-known. I have had great difficulty in that respect when I have tried to act on behalf of my constituents. It is time that electricity boards became humanised. Until they learn how to use rather than abuse the power they have, that power should be removed.
I very much hope that the Minister—to whom I had the pleasure of speaking last evening about this—will look into the matter urgently. The Child Poverty Action Group and many other bodies will give him all the information he needs. If the Government are genuinely concerned—as we are assured they are—for the poorer members of our society, pensioners, low wage earners and so on, they will find time for this short Bill, which is in the interests of humanity.
§ 4.28 p.m.
§ Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)I oppose the request made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) for leave to bring in a Bill, in no way because of the sentiment of what he said but because of the action of the hon. Gentleman and many colleagues who seek to bring in Ten-Minute Rule Bills at this time of the year when there is no prospect of their becoming law in the current Session, and the only result is the raising of the hopes of tens of thousands of simple people. Everything that htehon. Gentleman said could have been said in a memorandum to the Government, and the Government could have dealt with the electricity boards or brought in Government legislation.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman could have brought in a Bill behind the Chair weeks or months ago. Had he done so, it would 1527 have had an opportunity of becoming law without his having the bonus of publicity in the House. I deplore the publicity-seeking which gives false hope to people who are unlikely to benefit, and I deplore the conduct of the hon. Gentleman and many other colleagues who behave in this way and raise false hopes.
Turning to the substance of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I hope that the Minister will take note of what was said to him privately last night. If Members of Parliament feel that they wish to take some action for the good of the people, they should get it done privately in a way that will ensure that action is taken instead of merely publicity-seeking when nothing will happen. In that way they raise people's hopes without substance. I oppose the motion.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Emlyn Hooson and Mr. Russell Johnston.