Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Nokes and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not be using the veto. I ask the Prime Minister—this is about the 10th time I have done so—to respect parliamentary procedure in these matters.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

The south-east region is often regarded as the engine driver of the British economy, but the Solent region faces many challenges, particularly with the announcement of job losses at Ford last week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for a city deal for Southampton and Portsmouth is particularly compelling?

Ford Assembly Plant (Swaythling)

Debate between Caroline Nokes and John Bercow

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I seek leave to call for a debate on a specific and important matter that I believe should receive urgent consideration—namely the planned closure of the Ford assembly plant based in Swaythling in the Southampton part of my constituency.

Ford is the biggest single employer in my constituency. It currently employs approximately 500 people on site, and is home to the iconic Transit van. Ford began production in my constituency in 1953, and commenced building the Transit in 1972—40 years ago. The decision to close the plant will affect not only the 500 employees on site, but the significant supply chain attached to the business, which is equally at risk. Current estimates indicate that approximately 1,500 jobs are reliant on the Ford supply chain.

I call for a debate in the House because the closure affects not only my constituents but those of neighbouring right hon. and hon. colleagues. It is very much a cross-party matter, and the House will understand its importance. I am extremely concerned about the effect the plant’s closure will have on an area of my constituency that has higher unemployment statistics than other parts of Romsey and Southampton North, and I wish to seek assurances that the Government will do all they can to support those hard-working individuals.

I wish to emphasise the importance of Southampton’s inclusion in the next wave of city deal funding, and highlight the need for an enterprise zone to be created in the area. An enterprise zone in or around Southampton will undoubtedly create an environment in which businesses can grow, leading to a stronger local economy. I also strongly encourage BIS local, the city council and other neighbouring local authorities to join forces so that those being made redundant are given the most comprehensive help possible to find alternative opportunities.

It is imperative for this House to know whether there was anything the Government could have done to prevent the decision to close the plant. There are also questions over whether Ford has reneged on earlier promises to keep the factory open in exchange for previous Government funding, and what, if anything, the Government knew about the decision. Those issues should rightfully be debated on the Floor of the House, and not in the media.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the closure of the Ford assembly plant in Swaythling. I have listened carefully to her application, and it is an important matter for her constituents and others who depend upon that plant. I must tell the hon. Lady, however, that I have concluded that the matter does not meet the stringent criteria for an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24, and for that reason I do not propose to put the application to the House. I hope that the hon. Lady will succeed in finding other ways to debate this important issue soon. I hope that is of some assistance.

Business of the House

Debate between Caroline Nokes and John Bercow

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are, as usual on this occasion, seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that business under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee will follow. There are two pieces of such business, both of which are of intense topical interest. The second piece is a debate and I can tell the House—because I have the list—that it is extremely heavily subscribed. If I am to accommodate colleagues now, within a limited time frame, brevity from Members on the Back and Front Benches alike is essential. We will be led in that by Caroline Nokes.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware of the announcement by Ford today of the closure of the Transit factory in Swaythling in my constituency, with the loss of 500 manufacturing jobs and potential further losses in the supply chain. Will he please find time for a debate on this serious matter, which affects not just my constituency, but the surrounding constituencies of many right hon. and hon. Members?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Nokes and John Bercow

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is very informative, but I say to the Minister that it would be helpful if we could make some progress. Reading out great screeds just slows things down. It is quite straightforward, really.

[Caroline Nokes]

Last month, a bronze eagle statue was stolen from the memorial garden at the museum of Army flying in Middle Wallop in my constituency. The statue was placed there to commemorate brave Army aviators who had served their country. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Justice about sentencing guidelines for those who desecrate memorials to our servicemen and women?

Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing)

Debate between Caroline Nokes and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision relating to the regulation of postal marketing; and for connected purposes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such an important but sometimes under-reported matter. Every day, criminals worldwide send millions of unsolicited, mass-marketed letters to UK residents. As defined by the Office of Fair Trading, a mass-marketed scam is:

“A misleading or deceptive business practice where you receive an unsolicited or uninvited contact and false promises are made to con you out of your money”.

Although I appreciate that many such contacts might arrive by e-mail or telephone, I wish to focus today on those that use Royal Mail to deliver their message to potential victims. Consumers losing money in that way is a significant problem in the UK. Those activities are often targeted specifically at vulnerable or disadvantaged consumers, such as the elderly and those already in debt, and those individuals can suffer disproportionate levels of harm as a result. Although anyone can fall for a scam, the elderly and vulnerable are more likely to be targeted and to become repeat victims.

Members might be aware of the Nigerian 419 scam, which involves a letter asking the recipients to help in removing a substantial sum of money from Africa using their bank account, for which they will receive a smaller amount in return for their assistance. Inevitably, the money never arrives and the recipient will find that their bank account has been used fraudulently and, in some cases, that their identity has been stolen and cloned. That is one of the most popular and recognisable scams, but others involve fake lotteries, even clairvoyants and fictitious prize draws. After replying to the first “taster” letter, the victim’s details will be sold to other criminal networks and the deluge of mailings will begin.

Across the UK, postal workers deliver more than 100 pieces of mail every day to some victims, but there is no comprehensive system in place to report such activity. Nearly half of the UK adult population has been targeted in that way, and while it is easy for us to advise them to delete the e-mail, hang up the telephone or simply tear up the mailing, more than 3 million adults—6.5% of the UK population—will be taken in, losing a total of £3.5 billion every year. Should one have the misfortune to become a victim once, it will only get worse. Chronic victims have their names added to a so-called “suckers” list and will find the number of mailings increase exponentially as their details are sold on again and again.

We should not underestimate the effect that such mailings have. Scam mail is designed to shut down the normal thought process and dazzle the mind. Chronic victims can focus only on the fictitious prize, not on the money that they are sending to claim it. Many will not understand modern technology and how it allows mass mail to be easily produced, despite looking like important and personally addressed correspondence. They might fall out with their families, who are desperate to help their relatives stop what can become an addiction but cannot make them understand that sending yet more money will not make a fictitious prize appear. It is also worth noting that the Mailing Preference Service can help only if victims themselves come to understand that there is a problem and register with it. One of the biggest difficulties is in helping the victim realise that the offers are not genuine.

Scam mail should not be confused with perfectly legitimate direct marketing. Indeed, I seek to assure Members that I have no desire to prevent either legitimate businesses from communicating with potential customers, or Members from using direct mail to communicate with constituents. It is a complex area, because in seeking to afford greater protection to vulnerable constituents I do not wish to advocate measures that are excessive and cross the line between consumer protection and civil liberty.

Currently the principal protection comes from the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Fraud Act 2006. The former contains both criminal offences and the option to take injunctive action using the Enterprise Act 2002. Both can be used with a degree of success to deal with scams originating in the UK, but normally only once they are in full operation and vulnerable people have already suffered. Those originating in the European Union can be tackled using cross-border injunctive action procedures under the 2002 Act, but that is time-consuming, costly and rarely used. When scams originate from a country outside the EU, it is down to the authorities in that country to take action against the perpetrators. The level of co-operation will obviously vary from country to country and is fraught with difficulty. I have met Hampshire trading standards, which has been proactive in tackling the problem—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. It is only courteous to allow the hon. Lady to be heard with a degree of quiet and respect.

[Caroline Nokes]

Hampshire trading standards has made some constructive suggestions on the changes that it thinks would be possible. The police are also well aware of how and where scam mail enters the country, but they are currently unable to stop it. As I have mentioned, those who know best how to identify victims are postal workers. Many know their rounds and residents extremely well and can quickly identify when patterns of mass-marketed mail deliveries change and increase. Consequently, Hampshire trading standards is asking for measures to be introduced to enable the police, customs officers or the National Fraud Authority to identify and intercept scam mail when it enters the country, and to allow Royal Mail to disclose the details of potential victims to their local trading standards service, so that support can be offered to those financially abused and vulnerable people. One significant difficulty faced by Royal Mail is that passing on consumer details contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998. As I mentioned earlier, there might also be a conflict with human rights legislation, but even though it is a difficult process, it does not mean that we should not try.

The proposal to allow the police or other enforcement officers to intercept mail is a very difficult one, requiring changes to both the Postal Services Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Under current law, the police need to apply to the Secretary of State for a warrant under RIPA and the Police Act 1997 in order to intercept and open a postal packet lawfully in the course of its transmission.

I do not suggest for one moment that there should be a blanket power to intercept mail without a warrant, but such mail is easy to identify, the same victims are being targeted hundreds and hundreds of times over and it ought not to be impossible to introduce appropriate safeguards against breaches of human rights, controlled using the RIPA authorisation process at a sufficiently high level, while ensuring that the tests of necessity and proportionality are satisfied.

There is some disagreement between trading standards authorities and the Royal Mail about whether the disclosure of victims’ details is permitted under section 29 of the 1998 Act. There is no disagreement about whether postal workers are best placed to identify the victims. Indeed, they want to help. It might be appropriate, therefore, to introduce an amendment to the Postal Services Act to provide a legal gateway for the release of such information.

In a trial in Hampshire, the Royal Mail has worked closely with Hampshire trading standards to identify potential victims and to introduce a card that postmen and women can put through the doors of those whom they believe are being targeted, encouraging them to contact trading standards and to seek assistance. Of 44 cards delivered, however, only five victims came forward, suggesting that many people are not being given the support to tackle the problem that they face.

When I visited trading standards, I heard horrendous tales of victims’ houses, stuffed full of scam mail, with many thousands of pieces of paper stacked up in their living rooms; relatives in despair because they could not help their loved ones understand that the offers and promises were not genuine; and examples of Hampshire residents having lost more than £100,000.

This is a timely proposal. Next month is the Office of Fair Trading’s scam awareness month, which seeks to highlight and tackle the extent of that fraudulent activity. This proposal represents a proportionate approach and recognises the need to support the victims of such activities, who have suffered considerable financial loss and distress. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Caroline Nokes, Lorraine Fullbrook, Simon Hart, Caroline Dinenage, Simon Kirby, Justin Tomlinson, Andrew Bingham, Nick de Bois, Jack Lopresti, Rebecca Harris and Mike Weatherley present the Bill.

Caroline Nokes accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 134).