Communities and Local Government — Schedule 14 — Removal of Cap on Consumer Redress Order Payments — 3 Jun 2013 at 20:30
Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted against removing the cap on payments under "consumer redress orders" (set at 10% of an energy company's turnover) if one or more consumers suffer loss or damage greater than this value.
The majority of MPs voted against removing the cap on payments under "consumer redress orders" (set at 10% of an energy company's turnover) if one or more consumers suffer loss or damage greater than this value.
- Amendment 3, page 192, line 18, at end insert ‘unless one or more consumers have suffered loss or damage greater than this value.’
Previously the clause in question Schedule 14 section 30O(2):
- The maximum amount of compensation that a regulated person may be required to pay in respect of a contravention may not exceed 10 per cent of the person’s turnover.
The payments relate to "consumer redress orders" which require energy companies which breach licence conditions or other relevant regulatory requirements to provide redress to consumers who suffer loss, damage or inconvenience as a result of the breach.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Energy Bill (Now the Energy Act 2013
-  Amendment sheet for consideration of the Energy Bill on 3 Jun 2013
-  Webpage containing page 192 of the Energy Bill as it stood on the 9th of May 2013
-  Explanatory Notes to the Energy Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 9th May 2013
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||231 (+1 tell)||0||0||76.1%|
|Lab||0||210 (+2 tell)||0||82.2%|
|LDem||49 (+1 tell)||0||0||89.3%|