Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 53: Page 7, line 1, after ““vulnerable”” insert ““or otherwise disadvantaged”” The noble Baroness said: These amendments deal with consumers who in the terms of the Bill are ““vulnerable””. Amendment No. 53 is a probing amendment to discover whether the Government still define ““vulnerable”” as it is defined in previous statute. If so, where is it so defined, and exactly what is the definition of ““vulnerable””? There is a presumption against the disconnection of water, which has led to many debates in your Lordships’ House about the ““can’t pays”” and the ““won’t pays”” and what is to happen to them. While no sympathy is felt for the ““won’t pays””, the ““can’t pays””, and those who truly fall into the category of ““vulnerable””, whether because they are elderly, ill, mentally or physically disabled, or have a large number of young children, might make them vulnerable. The first amendment is simply designed for the Government to put on the record who they regard as vulnerable. If there is an official definition, my amendment seeks to explore whether it is wide enough and suggests inserting the words ““or otherwise disadvantaged””. Amendment No. 65 raises the question of who will do the urgent advocacy work that Energywatch undertakes on disconnection. Of course, people can have energy supplies disconnected. Energywatch has many files and has done huge amounts of work for people who were about to be disconnected, did not know where to turn and turned to Energywatch, which examined the case. I wish to put one example from Energywatch on the record for the Committee, so that Members know what I am talking about. A customer, who fell into debt with her gas account and was unable to repay was disconnected by her supplier. She was registered disabled and was in hospital when the supply was cut off. Her 15 year-old daughter was alone in the house without heating and hot water for nearly a month. The consumer was discharged from hospital to a cold house. Prior to the disconnection, her supplier had gone to court to obtain a warrant. The consumer was ordered to pay £22 a week by the court, despite receiving only £98 a week in benefits. Energywatch took up her case with the company, which eventually agreed to reconnect her supply and allowed her to pay her debt through the Fuel Direct scheme. Energywatch continued to negotiate on her behalf. Now she pays £2.80 a week towards her debt and £7.10 a week for gas, a payment level she is able to manage on her income. That example illustrates two points about which I am concerned. If the new arrangements come into being, who will be the advocate in the immediate term with a customer, for example, who returns from hospital to a cold house? Will the same body continue to take the case to a satisfactory conclusion both for the consumer and the supplier, which would get its debt paid off? Getting this right is particularly important, which is why I have tabled this amendment. I beg to move.