Financial Services Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

Worse, the charges on the consumers can often be made up front, so those customers who make payments to a debt management consolidator that is renegotiating their loans and credit often find that those payments can first go to pay the company’s charges before even a penny goes towards paying down some of the individuals’ debts. There have been numerous stories over a number of years of many consumers who, while thinking that they are doing the right thing by consolidating their debt and getting the situation sorted out, find many months later that all they have done is feed the profits of those companies who were taking advantage at that time. That is why the Opposition say that enough if enough. The time has come to bring forward proposals to phase out the practice of fee-charging for the provision of debt management plans to customers. We have framed the new clause in such a way that it is in no way unreasonable. We have not insisted on a particular way in which this is done or a particular date. We have asked the FCA simply to bring forward recommendations about how this could be facilitated.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I have a huge amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s points about some companies that prey on some of the most vulnerable in our society who are in fear of the debt collector knocking on the door. However, would he tar every debt management company with the same brush? I have experience of companies that behave responsibly and extend a great deal of help to people to manage their financial affairs.

[Chris Leslie]

That is a fair intervention. No, I would not say that they are all the same. There are companies, even those that may for some reason be using this fee charging process, that want to do the right thing, but my point is that that business model has had its time and needs to go. There is a better way, whether it is a for-profit or a non-profit avenue, for debt management consolidation to take place, and that is to tell the creditor that this is a way for them to get some money back, albeit not necessarily the full amount, from those heavily indebted customers who may owe them something, and in exchange for getting something back they have a duty as a creditor to stump up some of the cost for the administration of that consolidation. It is time to end the business model that has a propensity to cause hardship, not in every single case, but in too many cases, and that is why the Opposition believe that this is a perfectly reasonable new clause to bring forward.

New clause 10 concerns mortgages. People may well ask where the problem is at the time being when mortgage rates are at a low level, partly because the Bank of England is printing so much money that we end up with a low base rate. But the Governor of the Bank of England has been warning in a number of reports that this is an unsustainable situation and that over the medium term he expects interest rates to normalise. From the Bank of England’s point of view, whether the normalised interest rate is 4% or 5% is moot, but it is certainly much higher than the current rate.

My anxiety is that many consumers up and down the country might be under the false impression that this is a normal period, but it is not. If the mark-ups that the retail banks charge on the wholesale cost of borrowing are maintained as base rates or LIBOR rise to a more normal level, the mortgage rates that our constituents pay could end up being significantly higher, at 6%, 7% or 8%. I suspect that the difference between the price the banks pay wholesale for their money and the amount they charge customers upfront has been growing and is too wide. As soon as LIBOR creeps up, if that mark-up is maintained, we could be in serious difficulties, which is why the new clause is essential at this time.

This is a stitch-in-time new clause. We have tabled the proposal because we believe that now is a good time to require all the banks to forewarn their customers about a number of possible scenarios so that home owners with mortgages have the information necessary to prepare for them. Often when those of us with mortgages get information from lenders it is a set of retrospective information, for example on how much we have paid to defray the cost of our mortgage. We believe that it is now essential to forewarn customers about what could come in future, because we have to find a way of ending shocks to consumers, especially when changes to standard variable rates can sometimes be made with as little as two weeks’ notice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has shown that he has a full grasp of the issues. Many of those who saved through Farepak for Christmas 2006 believed that there was some form of protection for the money that they put in. They were of the opinion that they were being responsible by saving in that way. My view is that they were being responsible. We have a duty, as legislators, to put protections in statute to enable people to continue to save using such models. I think that those people had a reasonable expectation that there was regulation in place to protect the money that they put in. Many of them presumed that there was such regulation.

Five years ago, a voluntary body called the Christmas Prepayment Association was set up. However, many prepayment companies are not members of that organisation and there is no requirement for them to belong to it. Some of the biggest players in the market, such as Tesco and Asda, are not members. The association covers only Christmas schemes and not the wider prepayment sector.

I believe that the prepayment sector has not been regulated because, over time, different forms of prepayment have developed. Mechanisms have been put in place to provide protection for the earliest types of prepayment, such as those used in the travel industry. The Farepak case highlights important failings in the regulation of the prepayment industry. It has become clear that that lack of regulation extends not just to the Christmas hamper sector, but to a wide range of prepayment situations in which consumers pay in advance of receiving goods. I have already mentioned the holiday sector, in which the Association of British Travel Agents operates, and there are many other situations in which a customer pays for something by way of instalments.

That practice is usually undertaken by those of limited means, who are at risk of losing both their money and the product if the fund goes bust before they take delivery. Such a form of payment is used by such large organisations as Tesco and Asda, but also by small organisations in all our communities. Some people pay over a period for goods for a celebration, for example, perhaps paying a butcher instalments of £10 a week. We should provide a statutory framework so that such people get some type of preference if the organisation in question no longer exists.

One reason why it is important to have regulation is that it tends to be people from poorer communities who pay in advance by instalment. They are exactly the people who can least afford to lose out, and I do not believe that they should carry the risk when they choose that model of payment for goods. Many of them honestly assume that their money will be ring-fenced in some way.

We need to move to a model whereby moneys that are prepaid are effectively held in trust, and any organisation that can no longer deliver the goods because of a collapse gives those moneys priority. I therefore believe that it is appropriate that an organisation such as the Financial Policy Committee examines the issue. Prepayment exists in a wide range of scenarios, with people paying over a period in advance of receiving the goods. I therefore ask the Government to look sympathetically on new clause 12 and consider pursuing the course of action that it suggests.

[Lorely Burt]

I begin by warmly welcoming the Government amendments that provide further clarity on the intention to transfer the regulation of all consumer credit businesses currently regulated by the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority, while retaining all the protections that consumers currently enjoy under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

New clause 9 would commit the Government to phasing out charges for debt management plans. Whatever the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) thinks, businesses providing those plans are in the main legitimate. He talked about the scandalous behaviour in which certain debt management companies have indulged, but a number of companies look after their customers effectively and caringly.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one cause for concern must be the fact that organisations profit from debt management? The charging of fees by profit-making organisations seems inappropriate. Does she agree that we should encourage voluntary and non-profit making organisations in the sector?

[Lorely Burt]

Of course I would encourage such organisations, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, we need to give people financial education. There is an image of companies profiting from others’ misery, but there are companies that act responsibly and ethically, so I do not support new clause 9. It is a shame that all companies have to be tarred with the same brush, and the new clause would remove an element of choice from the consumer. Of course, many consumers would not choose a debt management company over a free service given the choice.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one problem is that consumers making a distress purchase do not know which companies are reputable? Unfortunately, the ones at the top of the Google list tend to be the least reputable.

[Lorely Burt]

I agree that the companies that spend money on unsolicited calls to people who may have a financial problem are the ones that need to make the most profit, to cover the cost of doing so. However, responsibility for debt management is moving to the new FCA, and new guidelines are being issued. As long as those guidelines are strong and properly enforced, part of the market may still be able to benefit from providing debt management advice.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady consider the fact that it is not necessarily about whether there are charges so much as it is about who pays them? The intention behind the new clause is to protect consumers from being the ones who pay. Is it not possible that debt management companies can find another way of funding their work rather than having consumers pay the price?

[Lorely Burt]

That should ideally be the situation, and when the new regulations are produced there should be a careful consideration of whether any up-front fees should be paid to debt management companies.

New clause 10 would require mortgage lenders to inform existing customers about potential interest rate changes. I have to declare an interest: I was a mortgage adviser in one of my past lives, so I know a little bit about the matter, and I suggest that any reputable mortgage company should do that anyway. It is not in their interests to encourage people to take on mortgages that they will not be able to repay should financial circumstances worsen. The new clause may therefore be superfluous. I completely understand and appreciate the sentiment behind it, but the matter will probably fall within the FCA rules and within the ethical behaviour that one should expect from any mortgage lender.

[Chris Leslie]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments, but if she cannot support the new clause, will she at least join me in encouraging the regulator to ensure that all banks think about informing customers of potential interest rate changes as a matter of course? One bank doing it would not be enough; we need them all to engage in that forward planning.

[Lorely Burt]

I agree entirely, and we already have a provision to enable that to happen.

My hon. Friend said that one building society requires customers to save with it before getting a mortgage there. When I had my first mortgage, more years ago than I care to admit to, that was the norm. People were expected to be a customer of a building society before getting a mortgage from it, which encouraged a way of saving that we seem to have lost in many areas of our society. I support the sentiment behind the new clause, but I do not believe we need it.

New clause 12 calls for a review of prepayment schemes, including an analysis of whether customers should be preferential creditors in the event of insolvency. The Farepak issue, and the tragedy of its customers, is emblazoned on our minds. Victims of other financial schemes such as Equitable Life still write to me virtually every week, but the new clause relates particularly to prepayment. Many structural issues contributed to Farepak’s demise and they need to be addressed. Many unsecured creditors suffer when such a company collapses. I am attracted to the idea of giving prepayment scheme customers a form of secured creditor status, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) suggests. The Minister has advised that such a measure is not appropriate within the remit of the Bill, because a prepayment company is not a financial services company, but perhaps he could advise us on an appropriate route for looking at the proposal in a little more depth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I rise to support several of the amendments. I will speak first to new clause 9 on the phasing out of debt management companies. I accept that some of them might act ethically, but a great number do not, and the voluntary code of practice has simply not worked. We are talking about a distress purchase. People who buy a debt management plan will often have been worrying about it for months and months. They are looking on the internet at 3 o’clock in the morning and going to the first name they see. They do not know whether it is a member of a reputable trade body. They simply see, with relief, that someone can help them with their debts. It is no wonder that the number of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service about these companies’ practices has rocketed in recent years. The cost of policing and dealing with these organisations is disproportionate. It would be much easier to phase them out and put that money into the free sector so that it can ensure that creditors, via the fair share scheme or the financial inclusion fund, pay for such advice.

I would also like to speak to new clause 12 and the prepayment issue, which was so eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The people who invested in Farepak honestly thought that it was a savings scheme, which should be regulated. My experience of working for a citizens advice bureau is that one of the most difficult things to explain to people is the difference between a deposit and a prepayment. People do not understand the difference; they believe that they are equally protected whether a payment to a scheme is classed as a deposit or a prepayment. Indeed, I have seen people in my constituency surgery who have had problems with funeral prepayment schemes, most of which are covered, but some of which are not. I have had grieving relatives come to me and even people who have paid for their funeral, thinking that their family were covered and would not have to worry anymore, who have lost their money.

The voluntary Christmas prepayment scheme is simply not sufficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) said, the big supermarkets are not taking part. I wrote to every supermarket, and they said, “There’s no need for us to take part.” However, if they will not take a lead, how can we expect the smaller companies to follow? The scheme needs to be expanded. We need to ensure that people do not fall through the gaps, such as when the Government say, “It’s not this regulation; it’s that regulation,” or, “It’s not in this area; it’s a consumer matter.” The people who suffered because of Farepak do not care where it is regulated; what they need is some regulation.

Amendment 55, which deals with the money for specialist debt advice, is extremely important. We have heard on a number of occasions that the Money Advice Service does not provide debt advice, and nor should it. It should not be providing people with advice on debt, but putting the matter to the agencies that specialise in it. It is quite understandable, with face-to-face money advice and the financial inclusion fund, that the Money Advice Service should want more cases dealt with. However, there is a perverse incentive, because in being able to deal with one-off cases, the agencies are seeing more people, but giving less advice. The intractable cases, where people really need advice—those involving people who cannot deal with their debts, but need to keep coming back because their creditors keep asking them to—are not being seen. One-off advice is fine for those who can help themselves; indeed, there are a number of people who can be directed to the internet or telephone. My concern is that the removal of legal aid for debt and the Money Advice Service’s inclusion of one-off cases in the financial inclusion fund mean that the people who need ongoing support for long, complex cases are not being seen by the agencies. If amendment 55 is not accepted, therefore, I would urge that those people be considered when debt advice is reviewed.

Let me turn to amendment 40, which was so eloquently spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I agree that capping the total cost of credit is simply one measure. However, we face an urgent situation. There are many other measures to consider, and I agree with the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson): roll-overs indeed cause detriment. I have one constituent who has taken out 17 payday loans in one day alone—that is the highest so far; I am still waiting for an improvement on that. As companies have no way of checking in real time whether somebody has taken out any more payday loans, we need a database, run by the regulator so whether somebody has taken out any further loans can be checked, and a limit, whether monetary or numerical. We need to consider that, so I welcome the fact that the Office of Fair Trading is conducting a review. I hope that it will widen that review to include doorstep lenders, such as Provident, which have for so long caused detriment to consumers.

I would like to mention a case that would be solved by capping the total cost of credit. I had a constituent come to me because she had borrowed £300 from Toothfairy. She was a hairdresser. Unfortunately her washer had broken down and she had borrowed that £300 so as not to have to go to BrightHouse and pay its extortionate costs. Unfortunately, however, the hairdressers closed before her next payday—no notice; she lost her job. Over 12 months she had offered instalments to Toothfairy, but the company would not listen to her or accept any instalments. Twelve months on, she went to the citizens advice bureau. She owed £2,570 at that stage, from a debt of £300. She had also received threats from the debt collection agency, which purported to be a bailiff. The company refused to negotiate with the citizens advice bureau, and although the OFT is investigating, there is no action yet. The OFT does not have the power to suspend the company. It is investigating the case, but if it finds that there was consumer detriment, it cannot suspend the company’s licence, and it knows very well that the company will appeal. I cannot believe that there is no consumer detriment in that case, or in the number of similar cases. The OFT or the new regulator must look at the power to suspend. However, capping the total cost of credit would also be a way of doing something urgently to prevent people such as my constituent from getting into such situations.

[Lorely Burt]

The hon. Lady talks about the OFT not having the power to suspend, but does she agree that the new powers, which the FCA will have, will make it possible to address that?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I do not believe that it has yet been confirmed that they will include the power to suspend a company. I would like the Minister to address that. If the FCA has that power and has the resources to act, that would help in cases where the company is breaking all the voluntary codes—it has been proved again that a voluntary code is not working. Again, however, consumers do not look to see whether such companies are regulated; they just need the money. They simply go to the nearest company—possibly the one at the top of the internet or possibly the person or company that sends them an unsolicited text. Consumers do not shop around for such loans.

Consumers need a robust regulator, and although I welcome the move from the OFT to the FCA in new clause 4, the Government need to clarify what that means for consumer protection. There needs to be a robust deterrent for firms entering the market. The bar needs to be set much higher. There also needs to be a real deterrent. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the £50,000 limit did not apply and that there could be an unlimited fine, because I believe that £50,000 will quite often be written into the business plan as a write-off. There needs to be the power and, as importantly, the resources to supervise and to stop bad practice at an early stage. Two years down the line is too late for the innocent people who have walked into the trap. We need a real consumer champion. As Which? has often said, what we want is a watchdog, not a lapdog.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her amendment 40, because payday loans and doorstep lending are a huge problem. There are many loan sharks out there and they need to be put back in their boxes. We need serious financial health warnings about their conduct, so that our constituents have some idea of how much they are borrowing and how much they will have to repay. For instance, anyone borrowing £100 at 2000% will have to pay back up to £2,000. That needs to be clearly laid out when people are taking out such loans. As has been pointed out, APRs—annual percentage rates—are not always understood by our constituents. Therefore, if they could see exactly what they had to repay, they would be much less likely to take out such loans.

[Lorely Burt]

The point of payday lending is that it should be for a very short period. Such issues arise when there are innumerable roll-overs, as outlined by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). What we hope the industry will do and the review will achieve is either to confine roll-overs to a small number or to abolish them altogether, which would address the problem of the £2,000, which no one in this Chamber wants to see.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It needs to be clearly set out when people take out a loan that such sums could be the result if they are unable to repay it. Let us consider the analogy of tobacco. We no longer allow tobacco advertising, and shops cannot even display packets of cigarettes any more, yet people can ring up Wonga on their mobile phone and take out a loan for which they will be charged 4,214% interest.