§ Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Energy what number and proportion of those consumers estimated to be adversely affected by each of the tariff changes examined in the tables in his report, Energy Tariffs and the Poor, would (a) be affected by less than £1 per week and (b) have any adverse effect offset by increased social security payments.
§ Mr. EadieI estimate that, out of the total numbers shown at the foot of Table 1 as likely to be harmed by each of the four possible tariff changes examined, 100 per cent., 99 per cent., 92 per cent. and 87 per cent., respectively, would be likely to be harmed by less than £1 a week. In the particular consumer categories analysed in the remaining tables I would expect broadly similar proportions to be harmed by less than £1 a week. But for the reasons indicated in the report, the actual numbers and amounts must be uncertain. I understand that the harm to consumers from tariff restructuring would generally not be offset by any increases in social security benefits.
634W
§ Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will give a general direction to the electricity and gas boards not to disconnect consumers who are covered by the agreements between fuel boards and the Supplementary Benefits Commission on fuel debts and disconnections, even if they do not for two years reduce their indebtedness.
§ Mr. EadieThere is already provision in such cases for the consumption of fuel to be monitored and for the weekly rate of payments to be adjusted if necessary to match consumption. The local social security office will also review each case at intervals to see if there are grounds for finally clearing the backlog of debt.