Vol. 417 No. 2
4 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Energy if he had consultations with the ESB in advance of his directive regarding use of the billing system for retail sales of late January; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5 Mr. Pattison asked the Minister for Energy if he will outline the up-to-date position in relation to his directive to the ESB regarding appliance sales and billing methods; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
49 Mr. Power asked the Minister for Energy if, in view of his request to terminate the use of the billing system for new appliance sales, he will outline the system the ESB will use for future sales; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
54 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Energy if he will outline the nature of his recent agreement with the ESB regarding their method of billing for electrical goods; if he will confirm that the ESB is now free to continue selling all electrical goods to its customers on its billing system at the most competitive rates possible; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
64 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Energy if it has been brought to his attention that his directive to the ESB to terminate their use of the billing system for new appliance sales has met with widespread opposition from consumer associations, St. Vincent de Paul, ACRA and others; and if he will review his decision in the light of this opposition.
105 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Energy whether the 150,000 consumers availing of the ESB's retail sales service prior to 1 March 1992 are now able to avail of that service at the same cost and in the same way.
106 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for Energy if he will outline the changes he is now directing the board of the ESB and ESB Retail to make; and whether his action requires a legislative amendment, as sections 49 and 50 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927, specifically instructs the ESB to engage in the advertising and sale of all electrical products and to open shops for that purpose.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 49, 54, 64, 105 and 106 together.
The ESB were aware of my concerns about the lack of transparency in the billing arrangements for credit sales and about the widespread fears of cut-offs of supply for non-payment of bills for goods bought in ESB shops before I informed the board of my requirements in January 1992.
The Deputies will probably be aware that agreement has now been reached with the ESB on changes to be made in their billing system for customers making instalment payments for goods bought in ESB shops. The ESB will be issuing a new style invoice for these customers, which will incorporate distinctly separate bills, one for electricity charges and another for instalment payments on electrical appliances purchased in ESB shops. I consider that the administration costs associated with the changes to the billing system will be negligible.
The new bill for shop purchases will state clearly that the ESB will not disconnect electricity supply for any default in payment for goods purchased in shops. I am pleased that the ESB have responded to my concern for this transparency so that ESB customers can distinguish clearly what is due for electricity and what is due for instalment payments for electrical appliances.
Electrical appliances will continue to be sold in ESB shops throughout the country and credit facilities will continue to be available. It was never my intention to deprive lower income families of access to credit facilities.
The new billing arrangements does not require any change to the ESB's legislation.
I regret that the Minister for Energy is not present to answer these questions. I should like the Minister to reply to my specific question about whether the Minister for Energy had any consultations with the ESB in advance of this directive. Will the Minister confirm that the directive went much further than merely seeking transparency in bills? I have a copy of the Minister's letter in front of me and it refer to alternative credit arrangements and to the discontinuance of the billing system for the purposes of retail sales and it specifically refers to alternative credit arrangements. As I said, I regret that the Minister for Energy is not present to answer these questions.
The Minister for Energy is abroad today on official business. As I understand it, the Minister for Energy had some discussions with senior people in the ESB on this problem over a long period and expressed his concern about it to them. The Minister regards the arrangement which has now been arrived at as satisfactory in as much as it clearly distinguishes between the two types of moneys which can be due by a customer to the ESB. This was not clear up to now and may have resulted in some people having their electricity supply disconnected in circumstances where it would, of course, have been much preferable if they did not have it disconnected.
I call Deputy Seamus Pattison whose Priority Question No. 5 refers.
Is the Minister aware that it is widely believed that the Minister for Energy introduced this directive for reasons other than his concern for the consumer? Is the Minister now saying that his only concern was for the consumer? In view of this, can the Minister be more specific? For example how many cases did the Minister take up with the ESB where customers had their electricity cut off for the non-payment of instalments for appliances? Surely there must be a record of the number and specific nature of complaints which the Minister states he made to the ESB about people having their electricity supply cut off because of falling behind in the repayment of their instalments.
Obviously the Deputy is going into a lot of detail, much of which I would regard as worthy of separate questions.
The Minister has told me that he received representations from 53 members on all sides of the House asking him to change the former position in regard to ESB billing. As well as being conscious of the needs and rights of consumers, I presume the Minister, in the normal way, took cognisance of the widespread level of representation from Members of this House in the discussions he had and the decisions he made.
May I——
I call Deputy Flaherty. I will call the Deputy again.
Would the Minister not accept that the cutting off of electricity is simply a red herring on the part of the Minister for Energy to cover his tracks? Is it not clearly evident from the history of this case that the Minister had no idea of the implications of his directive of 22 January 1992 which could have put ESB shops out of business. Clearly he saw the light during the intervening six weeks as a result of representations from the 150,000 consumers who were affected. Would the Minister explain why, since these questions were put to the 70 Deputies around this House, the ESB's case was never made until after the Minister issued the directive? It was the Minister's job to make their case and I would like to know why that was not done.
I may have understated the number of Deputies who made representations, but Deputy Flaherty corrects me and points out that the figure is 70. If I inadvertently misled the House by saying that only 53 Deputies were involved, I regret that. As I have made clear already it was never the Minister's intention to close ESB shops or to stop them trading at retail level. The Minister was concerned because of the large volume of complaints he was getting about the difficulty for consumers and he was also concerned about the question of fairness of competition as between the ESB and other retailers of electrical appliances.
This topic has been raised with me, in my capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce, on four separate occasions in this House in the last 12 months in adjournment debates and in debates on the Competition Bill where it was raised several times as being an example of the worst aspects of anti-competitive practices. Several Deputies, particularly in the Fine Gael Party, repeatedly asked me to put a stop to what the ESB were doing and pointed out that it was very unfair. The Minister had a great deal of support for his efforts to make the system more transparent in the interests of the consumer and fairer in everybody's interest.
There were many other more acceptable ways of doing so.
Would the Minister clarify the position about the 53 letters of representation from Members of this House? Do these letters relate to 53 cases of consumers whose ESB supply was cut off because of arrears of payments on instalments?
I cannot say because I have not seen the letters the Minister received. Obviously under the present billing system, which happily will be changed, if a consumer received a bill part of which related to the consumption of electricity and part of which related to instalments on an appliance and the consumer paid part of the bill but was not able to pay the remainder, he or she was in danger of having the electricity supply cut off. I do not think that person could have claimed that the part of the Bill he paid related to consumption of electricity rather than to the instalment or instalments he owned on the appliance.
Deputy Flaherty, a brief question for the obvious reason that time is fast running out for priority questions.
I would like to ask the Minister if the decision of the Minister for Energy was made on these terms. Can the Minister explain why senior figures in ESB retail heard of this decision from independent retailers who had been celebrating the decision over the previous weekend and were able to inform these people of the decision in advance of their being informed directly?
I would imagine that the first people who were told about the decision were the ESB.
