LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 25 July 1989)

§ Lord Sanderson of Bowden
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13.
Although the first points I am about to make may appear negative, I do not wish to give the impression that what has been said about the position of rural consumers over the past weeks has fallen on deaf ears. We appreciate the concern expressed and I believe that our proposals will give your Lordships the degree of reassurance which has been sought.
When we discussed these amendments on Report, I explained to your Lordships that we were unable to accept Amendment No. 1 because it would undermine the central purpose of the Bill. By requiring the director to ensure that all licensed suppliers dealt with their customers on exactly the same basis in all respects, there could be no scope for competition. Moreover, it would mean that the inherent differences of the various categories of customer would have to be ignored and that all customers would have to be supplied on the same terms. I also pointed out that the amendment would prevent special protection being given—as we have proposed—to groups such as the elderly and disabled, and to those who experience difficulty paying their bills.
Rather than protecting the interests of consumers, therefore, this amendment would worsen their position. I should add that, following my explanation of why we were unable to accept that particular amendment, my noble friend Lord Stanley acknowledged that he too was suspicious about it. The position has not changed and indeed those concerns have been endorsed in another place. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the right course of action is not to insist on the amendment.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, your Lordships will recall that, again, we had difficulties with these. Amendment No. 23 would create an unworkable inconsistency in the Bill by providing, on the one hand, that a supplier should be allowed to show due preference when fixing his tariffs but, on the other, that he would be prevented from discriminating between any of his customers. It would simply be impossible to prevent a supplier from discriminating between tariff customers and yet still allow him to give preference where it was due.
The Bill recognises that preference and discrimination should be permitted where these can be justified. There are many instances where this already happens in practice. One example is the Economy 7 tariff, which enables the supplier to pass on to the customer the benefits of his efficient load management. We would not wish to prevent this. It is, however, our intention that the Bill should prohibit preference or undue discrimination against any individual or against any group of customers. Amendment No. 24 seeks to include rural consumers among those who should be given protection. I can 1335 assure your Lordships that they are already covered by our proposals and that there is no need for the additional qualification that has been proposed. We therefore remain convinced that these amendments are unnecessary and that they would not in any case achieve your Lordships' objectives.
We do, of course, appreciate that the intention behind this group of amendments was the desire to ensure that in future due regard will be paid to, and adequate protection provided for, the interests of rural consumers. When we discussed this question at Report, my noble friend Lord Stanley pointed out that, in relation to the same point on the Water Bill, he had been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Caithness that the correct way to deal with the problem was to give the Secretary of State and the director duties to protect the rural consumer. Consequently my noble friend tabled an equivalent amendment to the Electricity Bill. The effect of that amendment is that the Secretary of State and the director, in exercising their functions under the Bill in the manner best calculated to protect the interests of consumers in respect of the prices they pay for their supplies, would be under a specific obligation to take account in particular of the need to protect the interests of consumers in rural areas.
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this point to our attention and congratulate him on the arguments in support of his points. I am pleased to confirm that, after careful consideration, we believe that placing such a duty on the director and the Secretary of State would be an improvement to the Bill in reinforcing the need to take account of the interests of rural customers. That view has been supported in another place.
Your Lordships demonstrated commitment to achieving recognition for the needs of rural consumers when accepting these amendments during the Report stage of the Bill. As I said earlier, we have looked at this matter very closely and believe that the amendment which has been made to the Bill will ensure that the interests of rural consumers will be protected. I am sure that, in view of our proposals, the House will not insist on Amendments Nos. 1, 23 and 24.

§ Lord Stanley of Alderley
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the amendment. I have to admit, as I said on Report, that Amendment No. 1 was not quite correct. In fact, now that the Government have been so good as to accept the amendment to Clause 3 I have to further admit that I was just a little concerned that Amendment No. 1 was sailing close to the wind. Indeed, it gave my noble friend Lord Renton such a shock that it drove him into the government Lobby, whereas I think he was with me in spirit.
Although I have to admit that it was a paving amendment, I hope the Opposition Front Bench will not cough and splutter too much if I say that it is just possible that such a ruse can be overdone in the 1336 future. Of course, that does not apply to me but I hope it will apply to the Opposition.
I should have preferred to see something in Clause 18 to draw the net tighter; that is, the rejected Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which my noble friend Lord Sanderson referred to. I accept his arguments and those put forward by my noble friend Lady Hooper on Report. Indeed, I owe him and her an apology for treating the arguments rather cavalierly when I summed up. However, as one of the movers of these amendments—one of which, the amendment to subsection (3)(a) in Clause 3, the Government are to accept—I hope that it is in order for me to thank all noble Lords who supported them. They came from all sides of the House. Not least I thank the Labour and Liberal Front Benches, who helped so much when the heat became rather hot in the kitchen. There were moments when I felt that I had a tiger by the tail. Perhaps I should follow my noble friend Lord Peyton's simile and say that it was a Rottweiler rather than a tiger; but that I find at the moment rather a dangerous form of amusement.
I thank the Government for listening and taking action on the concern expressed by your Lordships for those who live in rural areas and particularly for accepting this amendment to Clause 3. Like the similar amendment to the Water Bill mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, this amendment makes it very difficult for electricity plcs to load charges against rural consumers; so much so that my honourable friend Mr. Spicer said in another place yesterday: that amendment will require the regulator in carrying out his duties to take into account the interests of rural consumers. That enormous concession on the Government's part directly meets some of the anxieties that have recently been expressed".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/89; col. 819.] In that context I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who I fully accept has helped me considerably. He intimated when I moved the amendment that it was farmer-friendly. I was, of course, promoted and indeed whipped by the National Farmers Union but that was done on behalf of all those who live in rural areas, not just farmers. While on the subject of whipping I make no apology whatever to my noble kinsman the Chief Whip for going into the Lobby against him with a number of fellow Back-Benchers. As one Cross-Bencher said, the Government Chief Whip cannot have his own way all the time.
I am content that this matter has ended in laughter rather than tears. Indeed, I agree so much with my noble friend the Leader of the House, who said, when recently we discussed the child benefit amendment rejected by the Commons, that many amendments put forward by your Lordships' House are accepted by another place. Of course, there are times when they are not, but many are. Although I may have treated this amendment with laughter I consider it a serious matter. I repeat my thanks to the Government, who also considered it serious enough to put in their own amendment.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, we do not oppose the Commons in their reason. I have nothing specific to say other than to the noble Lord, Lord 1337 Stanley of Alderley, who moved the original amendment, that he must remember that there are certain procedures in this House which are governed by Opposition parties. He could not conceivably have won his amendment without them. He could not conceivably have won his amendment had it come up at a later stage in the business. The fact is that the drafting of Amendment No. 1, which I recognise to be in my own hand, was a device to get it up. This is a well known procedure and I hope the noble Lord will not be too caustic in future if we use the same device against him.