Consumer Rights Bill
Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Jolly
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I support Amendment 50B. The evidence available on the use of payday loans heightens fears that credit is increasingly seen as the new safety net for many citizens. StepChange found, for instance, that its clients with payday loans often have other forms of debt, such as a much greater likelihood of being behind with their rent.
The FCA has taken some strong and definitive action against the payday loan companies, and is suggesting that within a year or so perhaps 95% of these payday lending companies will be withdrawing their services. However, on its own admission, even after the cap on charges is introduced, the proportion of borrowers experiencing financial distress as a result of such borrowing will remain at about 40%. But whatever the action taken by the FCA to regulate a particular market, the demand for credit among low-income households will remain, as will the problem of rising debt and the need for help and advice.
Even after addressing the business models of the payday loan companies, the systemic problem will still need to be resolved: how can people get access to affordable credit and get access to, and use of, a free debt advice service? Only the Government can drive the policy needed to secure sufficient capital liquidity for not-for-profit affordable lenders to provide an alternative source of credit. This amendment captures the need for the Secretary of State to bring forward measures to address those twin needs of free debt advice for vulnerable consumers and the provision of affordable credit.
As a comparator, for those who have assets rather than debts, the new freedom and choice agenda for pensions due in April 2015 comes with a guaranteed guidance service, captured in legislation—on the assumption, quite rightly, that the position of pension savers and consumers in the marketplace will be more vulnerable to poor decision-taking without such guaranteed guidance. How greater is the case, then, for those who have debts rather than assets?
No doubt the argument will be made that significant numbers who would benefit do not seek debt advice and that the allocation of funding to a debt advice service is proportionate to the demand. My response is to say that the Government should take the lead in creating the demand and the take-up for that debt advice service. My noble friend Lord Stevenson suggested examples based on the Scottish system. Maybe we should see the introduction of some conditionalities into the credit market on taking debt counselling in association with the giving of loans. There are lots of initiatives that the Government could take, not only to provide debt advice services but to ensure that users or takers of loans use that service.
We also need to see how structural changes in the labour market interface with the social security system to understand whether this is reinforcing the use of credit as a systemic solution to low-income families’ financial management, demonstrating the need for free debt advice services. I will take a few moments to explain what I mean. The casualisation of employment contracts, along with variable and zero-hours contracts, can result in significant volatility around hours worked and income received in any one week, let alone between weeks. In such situations, where people do not have a smooth income flow, if you have to pay your rent, buy food for your children or repair a much needed broken washing machine, you probably cannot wait until a week where you have more hours and higher wages. You need the credit to tide you over.
However, the welfare system cannot provide a real-time response. Under the current system, if you work less than 16 hours in a week, you do not qualify for the working tax credit in that week. If you are tied into an exclusive contract with an employer and provided with very few hours of work that week, and are not available for other work because of that exclusivity, then you cannot get JSA. Universal credit, when it is rolled out, may overcome the barrier of the 16 hours but it will replace it with another hurdle that will increase the need for credit. Universal credit is paid monthly in arrears, so you would struggle to catch up with your debt even under universal credit.
If you face such volatility in your hours and income and have more than 16 hours of work, you deal with the HMRC, but if you have worked under 16 hours in that week, you deal with the DWP for JSA and with the local authority for housing benefit. You also have to manage your debts. As my noble friend Lady Hollis frequently comments, being poor can be a full-time job—even more so with the changing nature of the labour market and, potentially, the greater need for credit.
The point that I am making is that for lower-income households, given what is happening in the labour market and how the welfare system operates, even under universal credit, the need for short-term credit for families—particularly vulnerable, low-income ones—to manage their finances will increase, not decline, and with it the desperate need for debt advice services. The examples that I have given illustrate the real evidence why low-income people will persist in being vulnerable to high-cost loans and in need of debt advice services.
The problems are compounded by the insufficiency of low-cost sources of credit and the absence of public policies promoting savings strategies for low-income people to provide a savings buffer. Most do not have such a thing or the means to acquire it. Tax incentives are targeted at the better off. One has to earn enough in the first instance to get the benefit of incentivised tax relief. The need for low-cost loans and debt counselling will remain very important for the foreseeable future for many on low incomes. Whatever the FCA does to the business model of payday loan companies, the systemic problem of how low-income people manage their finances, their dependency on loans and their need for assistance in managing debt will, when one looks at what is happening in the world of work, increase and not decrease.
This amendment would put a responsibility on the Secretary of State to bring forward measures to ensure,
“free debt advice for vulnerable consumers; and … provision of affordable alternative credit through credit unions”.
Much is said by politicians, including in both Houses, about protecting people in the face of the realities of today’s labour and financial markets. Helping them manage their finances, which will protect the well-being of their families though the provision of affordable credit and debt counselling, has to rank very high.
Thinking of a comment to conclude my speech, I remembered being at a discussion dinner a while ago on the duties of care of providers in the wholesale and retail asset management industry, an issue on which I engage a great deal. There was a mixed group of people there from different sides of the industry and of different political persuasions. Someone asked why the management of consumers’ assets and savings receives so much more political attention than the management of debt. There was a pause around the room. I replied that it is because unmanageable debt is concentrated among the poor.
We have to raise that issue and say that there is nothing, looking at the horizon of the labour market and at how the welfare system will operate, that provides an easy solution for families caught in this need to manage their finances. That is why this amendment is so helpful. We have to sustain the debate. Governments and the Secretary of State must take on, as a core societal issue, how they address providing or delivering debt advice and low-cost access to credit to so many people who need them.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, those were really interesting contributions from noble Lords who know—not at the coal face but at the advice centre—what the issues are.
Turning to the noble Lord’s proposal for a levy on payday lenders, I commend his work in the area of debt advice as he stands down. I am sure that he will find something else to do with his time. The Government believe that the key to tackling problem payday lenders is tougher and better regulation. This is already set out. I have spoken at some length today about the way that the Government have reformed regulation of the payday market with the introduction of the FCA’s new regime.
FCA regulation is already having a dramatic impact on the payday market. Indeed, the FCA has found that the volume of payday loans has fallen by 35% since it took over regulation in April. Further changes are expected to follow the introduction of the cap on the cost of payday loans in January. The FCA has estimated that as few as three or four lenders may remain in the market. Consumers are better protected under the FCA regime. It has introduced binding rules and a rigorous authorisation process where it assesses payday lenders’ business models and compliance, which will begin next month. Firms that do not meet the FCA’s threshold conditions will not be authorised.
The amendment specifically proposes imposing a levy on payday lenders to support free debt advice and credit unions. The Government share the view of the importance of free debt advice and acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that people in debt have problems around well-being. The well-being of families has to be critical and core to all of these issues. The Government have put the provision of free debt advice on a sustainable footing through the Money Advice Service, but it is clearly supplemented by organisations such as StepChange and Citizens Advice.
Free debt advice is funded by a levy on lenders: once they are fully authorised by the FCA, payday lenders will contribute to this levy. The noble Lord’s proposal would therefore duplicate existing funding arrangements for debt advice. It is important to note that the FCA is also taking steps to ensure that vulnerable consumers are aware of the free debt advice available to them. The FCA requires all payday lenders to signpost free debt advice at the point a loan is rolled over, and all payday lending adverts must include a risk warning and information about where to get advice.
The Government also place great emphasis on the role of credit unions—I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Credit unions provide an invaluable service to a growing number of members, many of whom are on lower incomes. The Government have already taken a number of steps to support them, including investing £38 million to support the credit union expansion project to ensure sustainable growth of credit unions. This is not going to be a quick fix but a slow burn.
The Government have also raised the interest rate that credit unions can charge. It used to be capped at 2%; it is now 3%. That sounds like a small difference, but it should make quite a sizeable difference to a credit union’s bottom line, month by month, to support its financial strength through their savers’ interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, will know, the Government issued a call for evidence in June to seek views from interested parties about the future of credit unions and how the Government can do more to support the development of the credit union movement in Great Britain. The Government want to see the credit union movement go from strength to strength and the call for evidence is the first step in developing an environment of co-operation and mutual self-reliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked several questions. One was whether payday lenders would be authorised by the FCA in spring 2016. The FCA authorisation period for payday lenders begins next week, as I suspect the noble Lord knew. His second point was on the Farnish review. The Government commissioned an independent review into the effectiveness of the Money Advice Service. It will report to the Government by the end of this year.
The call for evidence has been successful in allowing all credit unions, regardless of size, to contribute their vision for the future of the sector to the wider debate. The Government’s response to the call for evidence will be published shortly. We believe firmly that consumers will best be served by the tough regulatory regime for payday lenders and the Government’s ongoing support for free debt advice and credit unions. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Consumer Rights Bill
Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
I have been advised that the criminal system and the civil system are significantly different. Probably the easiest thing to do would be to write to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for her remarks and the Minister for her responses. Perhaps I may deal first with some of the issues that have been raised in those responses. Reference was made to private enforcers having access to the primary authority’s advice, but the issue is that the Bill refers to all advice or guidance given by the primary authority. That is very broad and the parameters are not defined. I cannot ascertain from the Minister’s response the position as regards what happens when the advice is incomplete, what is the status of the advice in terms of whether it has to be formally documented, and the quality of the advice. It is a question of understanding. Will there be a definition of “primary authority advice” that is designed and designated to be fit for purpose as a consequence of the Bill? At the moment there is a great deal of ambiguity around what comes under the phrase “advice or guidance”, what will be “fit for purpose” and what will entail “records”, because these are pretty broad in the Bill and going against them would be pretty wide in its impact. There is still a lack of clarity around that point.
Given that extending these civil powers to private enforcers will not come about until the Government have satisfied themselves on how the civil powers for the public enforcers bed in, it would have been helpful to have been given greater clarity on the timetable. While something is desirable, if it is very far away, one must begin to question its desirability. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness felt able to elaborate a little more on this, at least in writing.
I turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the arguments deployed by my noble friend Lady Hayter. Of course they are reflective in some ways, although not in all, of the concern about the problems public enforcers will face, as well as private enforcers, in that exposure to costs under the terms of these safeguards will make them reluctant to use their civil powers. There is a question around whether the deterrent effect can be reinforced using the restricted resources that we know trading standards will face. Equally, private enforcement bodies have limited resources so they cannot willy-nilly avoid the consequences of what is in the Bill. Yet we all know that consumer bodies make a significant contribution to consumer protection by challenging dysfunctional markets. The Government must have accepted that because they put these provisions in the Bill in the first place. However, if the safeguards become such a disincentive, and the implementation of these powers is so far into the future, one begins to question the progress that the Bill offers in extending the civil powers measures.
Finally, on the point about exposure to costs, I conceded in speaking to my amendment that nothing in it would prevent a court from, as now, deciding that a private enforcer’s action should fail because it was inconsistent with previous advice and that exposure to costs would remain. My amendment would remove the automaticity of a case failing and exposure to costs existing because something, for whatever reason, was inconsistent with advice given when, as I said earlier, I have no sense of the nature of the primary advice as it will be defined for the purposes of the schedule in the Bill.
I have rehearsed my points. If the noble Baroness can elaborate further in writing, certainly on the timetable, it would be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Consumer Rights Bill
Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Jolly(10 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hayter on Amendment 8 to Clause 11. As we all know, consumer markets are becoming increasingly complex and more and more transactions are conducted online, but we still have the asymmetry of understanding between the trader and the consumer and the consumer’s behavioural bias—both of which we are all familiar with—which can create real incentives for traders to frame and present price information in a way that enhances their chances of a sale rather than enhancing transparency or the protection of the consumer.
For markets and trading to be fair, consumers need to have full and easily accessible knowledge of the real costs of what they are purchasing. I am sure that most people in this Room, including myself, have been attracted into purchasing a bargain only later to discover that it comes with many catches. My husband dines out on humiliating me on my inability to see some of these catches when I am swayed by the attraction of the bargain. These additional costs may be things that we did not see or realise until we were just about to pay or had just paid—or, even worse, did not see until after the event when the receipt has come in and we start noticing these little items that we did not realise were there.
I do a great deal of my purchasing online and there are three things in particular that irritate me. The first is when, just before clicking “OK” to the purchase, the purchaser is asked to confirm that they have read the associated terms and conditions, which are lengthy and dense and may require one to disengage from completing the purchase in order to go back and find them. As we know, the closer that the consumer gets to confirming the purchase, the less likely they are to walk away from it and to come out of the purchase and start again in order to read these dense and lengthy terms and conditions. I and others like me are unlikely to do so and, because we do not, we subsequently find that we have agreed to additional costs. Secondly, as one proceeds through these websites to make the purchase, the default setting may be to add extra items and charges to the purchase of the goods, and this is not made clear—one has to see and recognise that this is happening before one can even negate or delete the additional costs from the default setting. Thirdly, the headline price that attracted the purchaser to contemplate or initiate the purchase can be significantly different to the final cost, when all the extras are added.
My noble friend mentioned a government reference to a previous National Consumer Council publication. We all know that consumers do not take in too much information when they make a purchase, but the price is so significant and so at the heart of that purchase that it is all the more reason why the trader should be required to provide full details of the total costs. It is incomprehensible that, because the consumer cannot take in too much information, that should become an argument for limiting the obligation on the trader to make sure that the full extent of the costs that can be incurred in making that purchase are made clear before it is made. In fact, the fact that people cannot take on too much information is a compelling reason for making sure that our legislation requires the party who is the trader to make clear what charges the consumer can be expected to be exposed to when they make a purchase.
I am sure that the Government will argue that requiring the visibility of such information may be burdensome to business because of the frequent price changes that they may have to incur. However, given that much of the bad practice takes place online, it is difficult to see how such a requirement can be burdensome. When a price is altered, the trader will have to change their internal processes and internal systems, so having to go that bit further to update a website to make clear what the prices are hardly seems a compelling reason why the consumer should not be protected from not knowing the exposure on costs that they can incur when they make a purchase. Presumably one has the infrastructure of the information set out regarding the additional charges; it is a question of putting the new figure in.
Baroness Jolly
I am sure that noble Lords will be happy to know that, under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, traders are already required to make the consumer fully aware of total costs before a sale is made. The regulations require traders to give, or make available to the consumer, information about costs—and this includes online sales; it is any sales at all—before the consumer is bound by a contract. From on an online point of view, it is before they have pressed the return button. The information must be clear and comprehensible. The regulations came into force on 13 June 2014 and the main body of this amendment is therefore not required.
However, the Government believe that the additional requirement in the amendment for this information to be included in all public communication could place an enormous burden on business. The trader would need to alter all associated communications every time a price was altered, upwards or downwards. In some instances, that might put traders off lowering prices or offering special deals. In other instances, the price change might have been decided by the manufacturer or supplier, but the trader would have to bear the costs of the change.
Where the trader uses television or radio adverts, the additional costs could be significant. Already, radio adverts for financial services end with a lengthy and sometimes almost incomprehensible declaration of terms and conditions—the audio equivalent of small print. How much worse will this become if they must also detail every possible charge that may apply to every type of goods?
The important point is that the consumer is provided with the necessary information before they enter into the contract so that they can decide whether to continue. The consumer contracts regulations already require this. It might help Members of the Committee if I give a quick breakdown of the two sets of regulations that are independent of, but are referred to in, the Bill. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 implement the consumer rights directive. They set out the information that the trader should provide to the consumer, and this will form part of the contract. It will also include cancellation rights for consumers buying away from trader premises, such as a trader visiting their home, on the phone or, of course, online. It will also include measures to avoid hidden costs to consumers. As these regulations implement the consumer rights directive, the same basic rules apply across Europe and came into force on 4 June this year.
The second set of regulations came into force on 1 October, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014. These give consumers new rights to get their money back and seek damages through the civil courts where they have been victims of misleading or aggressive practices. The regulations make the processes clearer and simpler for consumers, and consumers will have 90 days to cancel a contract and receive a full refund if they have been misled or bullied into agreeing it. They had previously only limited rights in this area.
To recap, the important point about the amendment is that the consumer is provided with the necessary information before they enter into the contract so that they can decide whether or not to continue. The consumer contract regulations that I have just outlined already require this. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.