TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMERS' COUNCIL. (Hansard, 16 January 1992)

HC Deb 16 January 1992 vol 201 cc1124-34 1124

§ 1. The Council shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.

§ 2. The Council may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.

§ 3.—

(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine.
(2) The Council shall not appoint a person to act as principal officer of the Council except after consultation with the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities of its functions under this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (1) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.
(4) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.
(5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

§ 4. The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.

§ 5. It shall be the duty of the Council to comply with any notice given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury requiring it to perform duties of a financial nature specified in the notice.

§ (6) The Secretary of State may, to such extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the Council.

§ (7) Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 6 above shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

§ (8) In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall he inserted (at the appropriate place) the following entry—

§ 'The Telecommunications Consumers' Council',

§ and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.".'.

§ No. 51, new schedule—Electricity Consumers' Council ( Staff Etc.)—

§ 1. The Council shall not be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.

§ 2. The Council may pay to any member such sums, whether by way of remuneration or otherwise, as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine.

§ 3.—

(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Council may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and terms and conditions of service, appoint such staff as it may determine.
(2) The Council shall not appoint a person to act as principal officer of the Council except after consultation with the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities of its functions under 1125 this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by sub-paragraph (a) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.
(4) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (3) above shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in respect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.
(5) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the giving by the Secretary of State of an approval for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above.

§ 4. The Council shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the performance of any of its functions under this Act.

§ 6. The Secretary of State may, to such extent as may be approved by the Treasury, defray or contribute towards the expenses of the Council.

§ 7. Any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph 6 above shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

§ 8. In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 in Part II of Schedule 1 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted (at the appropriate place) the following entry—

§ "The Electricity Consumers' Council";

§ and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.'.

§ Mr. Redwood
The new powers to set standards and resolve disputes rest with the director general, but the Gas Consumers Council shares with Ofgas the responsibility for sorting out consumer complaints about British Gas. This new clause provides the framework to accommodate their special position, something which the Standing Committee that considered the Bill was keen to see. It will allow the Gas Consumers Council to carry out investigations of complaints that come to it, while ensuring that the customer is informed of his entitlement to have the dispute resolved by the director general.
Opposition proposals in their new clauses would complicate the position considerably. They amount to a vote of no confidence in the director general and a vote for confusion over the duties and responsibilities of the different bodies. I urge the House to reject the Opposition new clauses.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)
That was a very disappointing speech from the Minister. I am sorry that he seems oblivious to the large volume of complaints that he knows about because he has had more than one report on them—complaints that emanate from every part of the country and concern every utility. The commonest complaint from constituents, from the public, from the users, is that the utilities that were formerly public service companies have now become monopolies within the private sector. Regulation has failed and we would not be debating these clause if the earlier Act had not failed properly to protect the users of these utilities.
Nowhere is that failure more apparent than in the volume of complaints which the House is aware of. The Gas Consumers Council, for instance, has dealt with more than 125,000 complaints since it was established under the Gas Act 1986. It has answered 400,000 inquiries. It has had to deal through its regional offices with problems of billing, of service and of supply.
1126 In the other sectors, about which the Minister has again had adequate information, the figures are equally shocking. In telecommunications there have been nearly 40,000 complaints in England and almost 50,000 complaints up and down the country, and that does not include the half a million complaints which have been received about billing disputes, most of which remain unresolved; this is the single biggest area of consumer dissatisfaction when it comes to unresolved complaints. There were more than 10,000 complaints about electricity and more than 4,500 complaints about water.
One may suspect, with considerable justification, that it is because of the inability—demonstrated by the utility, the regulator and certainly by the Secretary of State and his Department—to tackle those complaints effectively that there have not been many more complaints. There can be little doubt that people feel that it is hardly worth while complaining about water and electricity.
Nothing demonstrates that more than the electricity price increase forced on more than 22.5 million customers last year. At the beginning of 1991 the electricity operators began submissions to the regulator, advising that there would be an increase well above inflation. In spite of the fact that the Secretary of State, in February, stated his unhappiness with the expected size of the increase, and that the regulator was well aware of the planned price increase, it was approved. An increase of 10.6 per cent. was foisted on customers on 1 April when 6.4 per cent. was more in line with the RPI.
What happened then? We can judge how ineffective the regulator was in standing up for the consumer by the fact that by October the electricity companies had merely been asked what they were going to do about bringing their prices down towards the RPI figure of 6.4 per cent. In effect, the regulator was snubbed by them. The increased charges have been imposed for the past 10 months. Since October, the companies have done nothing except overcharge their customers.
I am grateful to Mr. Littlechild's department—the Office of Electricity Regulation—for giving me the figures. The rate of overcharging is staggering. OFFER told me today that Eastern Electricity was overcharging by 1.5 per cent. That does not seem much, but it amounts to £25 million. The Merseyside and North-Western electricity board is overcharging by 0.5 per cent., according to OFFER, which amounts to £2.5 million. Northern Electric has been overcharging by 2 per cent., which puts £12 million into its pockets. Southern Electricity has gained £17 million from overcharging, according to OFFER. The South Western electricity board has gained £10 million and Yorkshire Electricity has gained £7 million. That makes a staggering total of £93.5 million for overcharging electricity customers. Meanwhile, the Minister and the Secretary of State sat and did nothing and the regulator was powerless to act.
That is the Government's record on representing the consumer. It is shocking that the Minister should come to the House and dismiss so casually the merits of these excellent amendments.

§ Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley)
Does my hon. Friend have the figures for NORWEB, which have been causing considerable problems for consumers in its area and have resulted in many letters to local papers, especially in Tory marginal constituencies?

1127

§ Mr. Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I missed NORWEB. To put the matter beyond doubt, the level of overcharging by that company was the highest in the country and netted it £20 million. My hon. Friend is assiduous in ensuring that such abuses are highlighted and in defending his constituents. He certainly speaks eloquently for the concerns of Opposition Members.
New clauses, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 and their effect on the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Water Industry Act 1991, will bring considerable advantage to consumers.
Let us consider why we are faced with the problems of overcharging and the high number of complaints.

§ Mr. Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to give director generals the necessary power to resolve the complaints and to take fully into account customer interest? Does he agree that his amendments do not help? The amendments say that customer complaints should go to the Secretary of State, but they do not give the Secretary of State power to override the director general and to determine the complaint. Surely it is better that the complaint be determined by the person who has the power—the person who receives the customer complaint.

4.30 pm

§ Mr. Griffiths
The Minister has been in office since 1987 and is obviously a fast learner. We put down a reasoned amendment because we support the principle of the Bill, as we have made clear. The Minister seems surprised at that. If he reads the Second Reading debate, he will see that that was made clear to the House. Indeed, we support the principle to such an extent that I am only echoing what we said when the individual measures were going through the House earlier in the 1980s. It is the failure of those measures to take account of what Labour was saying at that stage which has necessitated the new legislation.
The saddest thing is that the Minister is prepared to go only halfway to meet the challenge that faces the industries in addressing consumer grievances. He is still over-concerned about the profits that the businesses were making. He is over-concerned to make sure that the directors are protected so that they can pay themselves what they want and can take whatever boardroom perks they want at the expense of the consumer. That will be the subject of further debate later.
The powers in the previous legislation were too lax to protect consumers. The powers in this Bill, sadly, are also lax. The Minister seems pleased about what has been happening and is willing to defend it. If we consider each area individually, we shall see why the new clause is necessary to address the problem of the ineffective consumer committees. We also propose a cut in the number of consumer committees from approximately 190—most of which are ineffective-to about 50 effective committees which will have tough powers to represent users.
In electricity there are 14 regional consumer committees, with one for each electricity company. They are funded via the licence fee. The members and the chairman of the regional committees are not independent of the regulator and the industry. They are hired and fired by the regulator. That is the main reason for our opposition to the present set-up.
1128 The regulator has a distinct role as an economic regulator. That is very different from the role of consumer advocate. In many areas the blurring between the role of the regulator and the dependence of the consumer committees on the regulator have caused them to be so ineffective.
An indication of the dependence of the committees on the regulator is given in a brochure issued by one electricity consumer committee. It says that OFFER provides each committee with secretariat support. The committee secretary is a member of OFFER's staff. OFFER also provides each committee with its finances and its accommodation. The committees in England and Wales are based at OFFER's regional offices and those in Scotland are in OFFER's Scottish headquarters. That close link could have worked to the benefit of the consumer, but clearly it has failed the consumer. The reason is that the consumer committees have too often been toothless watchdogs, unable to command the information which new clause 27 addresses.
The structure for water is similar. There are 10 regional consumer service committees covering the various sewerage areas. The regulator appoints the chairmen, Ofwat—the Office of Water Services—provides the secretariat and, as with electricity, the chairmen of those committees comprise a national consumer committee which is chaired by the regulator. It is all far too cosy.
Only when we examine telecommunications, the area which generates the greatest number of complaints, do we see how ineffective is the present absurd structure established by the Government. There are four national advisory committees. They were set up specifically to be advisory bodies rather than user councils. An indication of their status can be gleaned from examining the submission of the English committee to Oftel's latest financial report. It expresses its gratitude to the Office of Telecommunications, without whose support, the functions of an Act would be impossible to carry out. One can bet that to be the case, with the use of its offices, its secretariat and, most important, being dependent on it for its membership.
Another fact has come as a surprise to several hon. Members with whom I discussed the matter earlier today. There are about 150 telecommunications advisory committees throughout the country. Earlier today, my research assistant telephoned directory inquiries for the telephone number of the telecom advisory committee for the Edinburgh area. The telephone operator told my researcher. "My screen says, 'See Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for Scotland' but when I key that, nothing comes up. I will refer you to a supervisor." A little later the supervisor said, "I am searching for you. Nothing is coming up. May I take your number and call you back?" I am still waiting for the return call.
In other words, we have, covering telecommunications, 150 advisory committees, the telephone numbers for which are apparently not in the telephone directory, and directory inquiries knows little, if anything, about them. It seems odd that, when a member of the public tries to contact one of the committees, its telephone number is not available. I will willingly give way to the Minister now if he can put forward any defence of those 150 telecommunications advisory committees. Nothing could be more indicative of the ineffectiveness of the Government's lapdog consumer representation than those advisory 1129 committees. It is time that we had tough, effective committees representing consumers. That is what we are demanding today.
The new clauses have considerable importance. For example, new clause 24 would impose a clear duty on the Secretary of State to appoint members with appropriate expertise to the Gas Consumers Council and the other consumer councils. Lest my remarks about the Gas Consumers Council are misconstrued, I hasten to put on record my gratitude for the work done by that council and its staff. We want the powers of the other consumer councils brought up to the levels enjoyed by the Gas Consumers Council.
So the first aim of the new clause is to ensure that the structure of the consumer councils is similar to that which the Gas Consumers Council has enjoyed. The Gas Consumers Council is special, because it is completely separate from the regulator and is not dependent on the regulator for any form of patronage or secretariat. That separation is critical, because the job of the regulator is not simply to look after the Minister's and wider interests but to examine the interests of the business, as is right and proper. The consumer councils, however, have the job of championing the consumer. That is the model that we are seeking to embrace. We want to see the Gas Consumers Council as the model for all the utilities, with five key enhancements.
New clause 24 would ensure that consumer councils had people with the appropriate expertise—not necessarily as members but certainly as consultants and advisers. There can be little doubt that any consumer body, if it is to be effective, must have access to expertise.
That is something which new clause 24 would establish. Sadly, given the Minister's introductory remarks, as well as some of the comments that peppered the Committee stage debate and his previous speeches and writings on this matter, it is hardly surprising that he is not too keen to give consumers more effective access to information and expertise.
That, after all, is what puts pressure on business to justify its decisions. New clause 24 would give the consumer councils the weaponry to ensure that they were staffed with people who had an understanding not only of consumer affairs—vital though that is—but of how industry works. In terms of expertise, they would be on the same footing as both the regulator and the industry itself. They would not necessarily have the multi-million-pound back-up that business has, but at least they would be on the first rung of the ladder.
New clause 25 would empower the Gas Consumers Council, and the subsequent new clauses would empower the other consumer councils, to deal with enforcement matters. It is a matter of some concern that issues relating to licence conditions are currently outwith the remit of the Gas Consumers Council and, of course, none of the other consumer bodies or committees come close to dealing with that matter. We want to make sure that the consumer has access to the material that determines licensing and the licence conditions so that we may have someone to speak for consumers when a licence is being considered. There should be provision for vetting and for the structure to be considered with some expertise. The regulator is more neutral in this matter, and we need someone to champion the interests of consumers.
New clause 26 would give the consumer councils power, in dealing with an enforcement matter, to draw up a report 1130 and make recommendations. We should like to see such a report sent to the regulator and, where appropriate, to the Office of Fair Trading, which plays a critical part in vetting business and in ensuring fair and proper business practice. Under this new clause, the utility would have to have regard to the report, and if it should fail to comply with the recommendations the consumer council would have to refer the matter to the regulator. We realise that the regulator would still have the last say in determining the outcome of a complaint, but the process would be much more open, and the consumer council would have much better access to the information, which at present is held by the regulator as the referee and by the utility itself as one of the major players.
To enhance that openness we need new clause 28, which would give the consumer councils the same access to raw data on the utility performance levels as the regulator has. It is critical that business should not be able to stand behind bogus and unsustainable claims of commercial confidentiality and that it should be compelled to provide the consumer bodies and others representing the consumers with information about how decisions are taken. Too often the regulators have been over-defensive and over-protective of their information. In this regard, I think that the Minister has accepted their defence. We all know of officials, whether in the private or the public sector, who are afraid to give up information. That is being overcome gradually. Once it has been overcome, businesses, councils and other bodies wonder why they were ever so secretive.
New clause 28 would give a further push in that direction, a further impetus to ensuring that data that might be used very effectively were made available. Of course, the Gas Consumers Council has been very effective in getting data—one way or another. It has been able to influence decisions because it has information. Over the past six years, one of its greatest achievements has been its campaign against disconnections. In 1988, the number was between 60,000 and 80,000; thanks to the gas consumers' pressure on Ofgas, on the basis of information that they collected through their regional offices, it is now below 20,000.
4.45 pm
I want to refer to something that may be a fear of the Minister and of those who think that individuals are the only consumers. Business consumers are often the biggest spenders and often stand to lose the most. We are very keen to see that they too are protected. The Gas Consumers Council brought about the change in British Gas's contract market to protect businesses. All the consumer councils established by the next Labour Government will be effective not just for the domestic consumer but for the business consumer. It will be remembered that the Gas Consumers Council referred British Gas to the Office of Fair Trading, with a recommendation that there should be a referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We know that, as a direct consequence of that, the contract matter became subject to regulation. Even where only limited information has been available, the Gas Consumers Council has been able to secure great benefits not just for the domestic consumer but also for the business consumer.
The sad thing is that, because the other advisory committees have been hamstrung in the way that I outlined, they have not been able to act in the same limited but effective way as the Gas Consumers Council. How 1131 many disconnection abuse cases have not been properly addressed because the consumer bodies lack proper resources and proper independence? How many businesses have been paying too much because of the absence of a body like the Gas Consumers Council to champion their interests?
I do not understand why the Minister does not accept the thrust of this argument. Surely it is beyond party political dispute that, in the 1990s, we want consumer bodies that are as effective as possible, but the Government have been plagued by narrow dogma for the past 13 years, and the dogma is as alive and well today as it has been at any time during those years. The Government have been in favour of deregulation and have been intent on watering down consumer representation and on making sure that business is free to do very much what it wants.
With new clause 27, we want to make sure that the consumer committees are able to go directly to where the buck stops—to the Secretary of State—rather than through the regulator, as at present. It is ludicrous that a consumer committee should not have direct access to the Secretary of State. We all know that if a utility wants to speak to him, the Secretary of State—certainly in the case of the present Government—will trot down the road to meet it rather than expect it to come and see him. The importance of these five new clauses—the importance of extending the powers of the Gas Consumers Council and bringing all the other consumer bodies up to the strength of that council—cannot be overstressed.
It is important that any money that is spent at present is spent effectively. I want to know from the Minister how much is spent on the current consumer bodies—electricity, the National Consumers' Consultative Council and its 14 regional committees, the 10 water committees, the four Telecom national advisory committees—and I hope that he will be able to answer my question today. I should like to know, in particular, the budget for the 150 telecommunications advisory committees. We know, of course, that the budget for the 12 gas consumer committees is around £2 million. I want to see those 190 bodies, only one of which has been really effective, cut to around 50 on a regional basis, all of them with enhanced powers, championing the consumers' point of view, and making sure that the absurd and quite unjustifiable increases that have been forced on so many people are not perpetuated.
One of the problems that have to be addressed is the composition of these committees. If the past 13 years have taught us anything about quangos, it is that Tory quangos really are Tory quangos. The packing of these committees too often with defeated or failed Conservative party members is common. My predecessor as the Member for Edinburgh, South is a case in point. I will write to the Minister giving a list of the quangos that he was put on after he lost the Edinburgh, South seat. I am sure that my hon. Friends who were triumphant in the last election will act similarly.
This is the important message that I want to deliver. It is not that we will reverse what the Government have done with a mirror image. In the 1970s, it was noticeable that consumer committees and other quangos were much more balanced and had representatives of all parties and of no party. I want to see on the new consumer consultative committees people who, irrespective of party, know and care about consumers and do not have to carry a Tory 1132 party card, as they often do now when appointed to these committees, and certainly to the higher salaried levels. That is one of the reasons why these bodies have been so ineffective.
We need consumer committees that truly represent consumers. That is why, in new clauses and amendments, we have suggested ways of democratising, which I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to take on board.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to have wide representation on consumer committees. However, at least in Wales, the Labour party had as bad a reputation as the present Government for putting its party members on to quangos. Will he confirm that the Labour party is committed to advertising places on consumer committees so that the widest possible range of applications can be received? Does he agree that that is the fair way of doing it?

§ Mr. Griffiths
I certainly have no objection at all to making sure that the widest possible publicity is given to the posts, and I have no objection in principle to advertising. However, I take deep exception to the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier comment. We know from the speech that he made to trading standard officers how his thinking goes. He wishes to centralise everything—to make sure that everything is brought into the centre, that responsibility for trading standards is removed from local councils and brought to the centre. I wonder what malevolent purpose lurks there. I do not want to provoke the hon. and learned Gentleman——

§ Mr. Carlile
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has ascribed to me a malevolent purpose, which is a personal slight on me, on an issue with which, with respect, the structure of trading standards authorities has nothing whatsoever to do. Surely the hon. Gentleman should be required to withdraw his assertion that I have a malevolent purpose and to apologise.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
I think that the hon. Gentleman was momentarily diverted from what is in order in the debate.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I accept your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me with what I thought was a fairly irrelevant and malicious intervention, I was drawing my remarks to a close by saying that there is a commitment on our part to ensure that consumers are adequately represented, as they are not at present, and that the widest possible membership is sought.
As I have said, I have no objection to the principle of advertising these posts. Indeed, if the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the Standing Committee when I raised the possibility of elections to these committees, he knows that that was not ruled out. Indeed, I was canvassing that pretty strongly myself in a probing amendment. So I am not prepared to take lectures from the hon. and learned Gentleman about the structure of such bodies. I believe that we are at one in wanting to ensure that there is much wider representation than at present and that we have effective bodies.
It is in that spirit that I commend the new clauses.

§ Mr. Redwood
The hon. Gentleman said that his researcher had had trouble finding the telephone number 1133 of the Scottish TAC. My inquisitiveness has managed to get the reply very promptly. He may like to know that the number is 031—for those dialling from outside Edinburgh—244 5576. I cannot understand why his researcher went for such a long lunch that he could not find it.

§ Mr. Nigel Griffiths
The fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, is clearly that when the Minister's civil servants telephoned, it was fresh in their memories because they had just spent three hours finding it.

§ Mr. Redwood
That was a very pathetic attempt to recover the position. There is no secret, as far as I am concerned, about these numbers and I am very happy to advertise this one today through the usual channel of Hansard in this debate which is being so intently listened to by so many hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman implied that appointments were made throughout the system of representation entirely by director-generals. He should note that the chairmen and members of the four national advisory committees of Telecom are appointed by the Secretary of State. So there is more distinction in those appointments than he was suggesting
I was not enchanted by the hon. Gentleman's idea of going back to the golden era of the 1970s, the winter of discontent and justice in appointments to all bodies. It did not seem to me to have the ring of truth about it, any more than it did to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
This is a winter of discontent for the Labour party.

§ Mr. Redwood
I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in that intervention from a sedentary position. Also, Labour has not enjoyed comments on its tax proposals, but those are not relevant to this debate.
The main contention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is that there should be a clear distinction between the customer committees and the regulator. That is where I beg to differ and where I hope that the House will agree with the Government. In order to have effective regulation, there has to be one person or one body that can make the decisions, that can settle the complaints in the interest of either the customer or the business, based upon a fair judgment of the legitimacy of those complaints.
The great weakness in the Opposition new clauses—I suspect that they were not drafted by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen but were drafted elsewhere—is that in the end——

§ Mr. Griffiths
What about Government amendments?

§ Mr. Redwood
Government amendments are, of course, approved by and in part drafted by Ministers, who are entirely responsible for them and have taken an active part in their drafting. The hon. Gentleman does not know how government works; it is so long since his party has been in government. Little does he know how much attention these amendments get from Ministers.
The Opposition new clauses suggest that the regulator should still be the only person in the system with the power to determine disputes, so although the hon. Gentleman tries to make out that there is a big divide between us, in practice we seem to agree on the important thing—that only one body or person can settle those disputes and that 1134 person or body should be the regulator in each case. The hon. Gentleman did not answer my intervention on that point, and I think that he now accepts that there is no difference between us on that crucial matter.
The hon. Gentleman's new clauses would create far more confusion in the system. They would disrupt existing boundaries between the consumer bodies and the director generals. They would try to shift the balance and would give the consumer bodies a more advisory power, but they, would have no power to deliver that, so they might increase the tensions and boundary disputes within the system, rather than help the proper and prompt settlement of disputes by the director general.
5 pm
If Labour Members have no confidence in the directors general, they should say so and be honest in their criticisms. They should say why they think a particular director general is falling down on his task and should come forward with their own recommendations on how it could be done better. I think that we are well served by the current directors general and, with the strength and powers in the Bill to settle customer disputes, in all cases with the force of law behind them, they will provide an even better service, as the Opposition and the Government want.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South says that he has been reading my speeches and writings, but he has not been doing so very attentively or he would know that I have often insisted on the primacy of a customer interest. One of my main criticisms of the performance of the nationalised industries under Labour and Liberal Administrations in the past is that they were too negligent of customer interests, and that customer interests needed to be promoted in the order of priorities. That is exactly what a policy of competition does. Under a competitive system, customers are put first because everyone wants to win their business. Under the system of regulation that we have laid out in recent years and which the Bill now strengthens, customer interest is a driving force for better quality, prices and service from businesses.
One of the new clauses proposed by the Opposition seeks to change the balance of representation on the Gas Consumers Council. It says that that council should consist of people with direct practical experience of the industry's activities. I suspect that, again, the Labour party has not done its homework, for if it had, it would see that three members of the Gas Consumers Council have direct practical and professional experience in the areas which Labour Members say should be represented on that council. One is an engineering consultant with a lifetime's experience of fuel issues and two are currently in business in the commercial sector as fuel purchasing managers, with exactly the detailed knowledge and experience which Labour Members say should be available to the council.
Therefore, we do not need the new clauses, because it is clear that current practice takes into account the need for the right kind of expertise on that body, and it already works perfectly well. The right clarifications that the Bill needs to settle the boundary lines between the Gas Consumers Council and the regulator are those in the Government new clause. I commend our new clause to the House and urge hon. Members to reject the other new clauses.

§ Question put and agreed to.

§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.