(East Lothian) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish higher standing
charges for customers with pre-payment meters; to require energy
companies to provide social tariffs for low income customers; and
for connected purposes.
Energy costs are the social and economic issue of our time, yet
the steps taken to mitigate the pain of rises are far from
adequate. Fuel poverty is soaring and winter is nearing. That
Scotland, which is energy rich, should find over half its people
fuel poor is absurd. The pain is likewise felt south of the
border, even if the climate is less severe and the natural bounty
less kind. Additional action is therefore required across the
country, and urgently, especially for those most desperate and
most vulnerable.
The £2,500 figure is not the cap but the average cost. Past
support has provided modest finance, but it has been inadequate
for most to keep pace with soaring costs. As bills escalate, fear
is turning to horror in the knowledge that even that support is
there only until April. Beyond the Government soundbites,
hardship remains, and the cost of energy will bite many severely,
if not devour them. Anomalies and injustices remain, which must
cease. The most appalling is the perversity of prepayment meters
having higher standing charges. A social tariff for those poorest
and most vulnerable, as exists in many other countries, must also
be introduced. That is what lies at the heart of the Bill. It is
supported by both Energy Action Scotland and National Energy
Action, who know the fuel poverty faced by those whose interests
they represent, as well as by Age Scotland, which advocates on
behalf of older people. I am grateful for their endorsement.
Scotland, with some 500,000 prepayment meters, is
disproportionally affected, but the numbers across Britain are
still significant with 4 million households having higher costs
imposed by PPMs. Action to address these injustices is both right
and necessary as fuel and energy are not luxuries but
necessities. Their implications in our modern society go far
beyond heating a home. Power and energy are required for so many
basic aspects of life. The inability to provide them undermines
the ability to function in our society or to maintain dignity and
self-respect.
Of course, a new euphemism has entered our lexicon: the phrase
“self-disconnection.” It is misleading and it is insidious. It is
akin to those other phrases that are meant to hide horror or
injustice such as collateral damage when what is meant is the
killing of innocent civilians.
What does self-disconnection mean in reality? It is not someone
who simply chooses not to switch on the heating, nor does it
refer to the past generational—though no doubt
fast-returning—parental demands to switch off lights or turn off
the shower. Instead, it is the situation in which many now find
themselves where they simply cannot afford either to buy a power
card or to turn on the heating or any other powered appliance. It
is not voluntary. It may not be imposed through any law or
enforced at the barrel of a gun, but it is forced on them through
circumstances over which they have no control. That is why the
Bill and the actions that it requires are necessary.
Disconnection, or more likely self-disconnection, has widespread
implications that are horrific yet masked by benign euphemisms.
It is not simply the horror of choosing between heating and
eating this winter, although that alone is bad enough. The
implications of being unable to access power go far beyond that.
It is the mother who wishes to wash her children’s clothes for
school, so she can keep them clean and smart. It is the youngster
who needs to charge their phone to access employment
opportunities they desperately seek. It is the parent who wants
to power up the iPad given by the school, so that their child can
improve their education and hence their life chances. It is the
dialysis patient who requires to switch on the machine that they
require for life itself, never mind others suffering from cancer
or sick from other illnesses and who feel the cold more, yet are
unable to provide, or are even denied, that modest comfort during
convalescence—or even, shamefully, at end of life.
Compounding that injustice are accrued standing charges even when
users have been sparing in their consumption. Many will find that
their power card or savings are immediately consumed by paying
debt before they get even a modicum of power. As I said, fuel and
energy costs are about more than just heating or eating. They are
about dignity, they are about opportunity, they are about life
itself. This has not come about through some climatic disaster as
has tragically afflicted Pakistan. Nor can it be blamed solely on
Putin and the war in Ukraine. These are policy issues overseen by
the UK Government where injustice and iniquity have been allowed
to take root. Much of that can be addressed by the ending of
higher standing charges for pre-payment meters, and through the
implementation of a social tariff for those with the least and
who are most vulnerable. After all, it is not just unjust but
perverse that those with least should pay most for energy,
especially when those with most are paying least in their tax
burden.
I accept that some have found pre-payment meters helpful for
budgeting, although the strength of that argument has been
sapped, if not ended, by the arrival of smart meters. There is
also the situation of private landlords who wish to ensure that
they avoid costs if a tenant should depart without paying their
bill. Again, smart meters offer some solution, but again the
issue is not the meter itself but the tariff charged. Some 13% of
smart meters are on pre-payment tariffs. Technology is meant to
liberate us, not perpetuate injustice. Pre-payment meters,
whether smart or otherwise, can remain. What must end are the
higher standing charges and tariffs. They are simply unacceptable
anytime, but most especially now.
Both Ofgem and energy suppliers testify to the technical capacity
to make that change. What is required is the political will,
which is why I have proposed this Bill. It has widespread support
within and without Parliament. It would, of course, require a
very modest tariff increase for those paying on credit, but the
numbers involved, and the amount of energy consumed through PPMs,
make it a very small burden upon those of us more fortunate.
Likewise, a social tariff is a concept whose time has come.
Ending the burden on the poorest and most vulnerable through
changes to PPM tariffs must be matched by the availability of a
social tariff, one where the poorest and most vulnerable can
access energy and at affordable rates. It is a concept that has
the support of the organisations I mentioned earlier with regard
to action on pre-payment meters—Energy Action Scotland, Age
Scotland and National Energy Action—and is also argued for by the
Fuel Bank Foundation and Fair By Design, organisations working
for those at the heart of the fuel and energy crisis who are
being hit hardest.
It is not impossible, let alone unheard of—even before the
current energy crisis and emergency measures being invoked, other
countries provided for the poorest and most vulnerable. A federal
law in Belgium
“protected residential consumers with low income or precarious
situation”.
That social tariff saw almost 10% of electricity users pay 34%
less and a similar number of gas users pay between 38% and 48%
less. Those were the poorest and most vulnerable and certainly
those facing the most acute need and difficulties. In Belgium,
the social tariff covers people receiving minimum income
benefits; people receiving an income replacement benefit; people
with disabilities receiving integrated support; and people in
receipt of an income guarantee benefit. Who would quibble with
those priorities or dispute that those people have additional
need for fuel and energy that requires them to be charged on a
tariff that recognises that?
Belgium is not alone in operating a social tariff. Again, even
before this crisis, Spain provided a social bonus scheme whereby
a 25% discount was available on electricity bills for vulnerable
energy customers, including disabled customers, with a 40%
discount for severely disabled consumers. Other countries also
take the appropriate action, even if criteria, eligibility and
amount may vary. However, the urgent need remains that, in this
time of crisis, the poorest and most vulnerable require the most
support and should pay the lowest tariffs. That and the injustice
of higher charges being imposed upon them must end.
That is why the Bill is necessary. Energy, fuel and power are
fundamental—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a ten-minute rule Bill. The hon. Member has gone
beyond 10 minutes, so I hope he can sum up quickly.
Indeed. The fact that Scotland is energy-rich yet Scots are
fuel-poor is absurd, and it is shameful that that should be
replicated across the UK. Worse than that is the perversity that
the poorest and most vulnerable pay the most. That must end, and
this Bill will ensure that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24
March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 166).
