Lord Stoneham of Droxford
Main Page: Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Consumer Rights Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I have not spoken previously on the Bill, but I spoke at considerable length on the banking Bill—now an Act. In the concluding stages we discussed payday loans at considerable length. I was anxious, right at the end of the proceedings, that we should not simply encourage the Government to impose a limit on the charges paid on payday loans but also on the rate of interest. This was resisted by the Government at the time. Therefore, I am as happy as the noble Lord who has just spoken that the Financial Conduct Authority has, in fact, come out with a series of proposals that considerably improve the environment in which we are discussing payday loans and this amendment. In particular, it has imposed an initial cost of 0.8% per day rate of interest, a fixed default fee which is capped at £15, and a total cost cap of 100%. All these are very welcome.
None the less, in the context of this amendment, the situation is far from satisfactory. I looked at the supporting papers, which the Financial Conduct Authority is putting forward. It calculates the APR equivalent to what I just said as 1,270%. I think we have to consider very carefully whether it is right in saying that the limits it has set will be in danger of eliminating short-term loans if one compares that APR with the cost of capital to the companies which we are discussing.
I will speak a little on the amendment because, as I indicated earlier, I am very sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been put forward. My problem is with the drafting of the amendment. As I sought to point out earlier, although the right reverend Prelate suggests that the amendment is to deal with the watershed, it does not refer—I think I am right in saying—to the watershed as such. My problem is that I suspect that the Government will be reluctant to accept the amendment in its present form. Perhaps my noble friend, in replying to the debate, will indicate whether that is so or whether they are sufficiently sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment that they will come back at Third Reading, or will encourage us to come back at Third Reading, with a more specific form of amendment than that which we are asked to debate, and that many Members have suggested we ought to vote on today. I think that there are some problems. It is not entirely clear, for example, how one is going to demonstrate that a particular advertisement is deliberately targeted at the people we are trying to protect by this amendment.
Overall, I hope my noble friend can reply sympathetically and that we can come back, if not today then at a later stage, with an amendment which is acceptable and which will achieve the objectives that I think are right. It is quite wrong that these adverts should be targeted—as I believe they are, but it is difficult to prove—at children. The Children’s Society rightly points out the extraordinary extent to which the adverts appear to be having an impact on young children, who in turn will be having an impact on the attitude of their parents. Therefore, I think that this is something on which clearly we need to take action—but it is not very simple, and we need to get the legislation right.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Higgins has been saying on the precise nature of this amendment, but I will also share the underlying feelings on this issue that have been expressed by the right reverend Prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, who has played such an important role in getting fundamental changes in the conduct of payday lending. I think it is also fair to say that the Government have listened. The Government also have worked through the Financial Conduct Authority to make sure that these payday loan companies are now in retreat.
As somebody who has worked in the media, I am always very cautious about structural intervention in advertising, because there are always arguments for restricting advertising in certain circumstances. I think that this issue is not just about young people but about all vulnerable people being taken in by this advertising. We have seen the complications. It is not just children’s television or even daytime television; it is the use of branding to appeal to a particular audience. It is a very complex issue. Two bodies deal in this area: the Advertising Standards Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Both those bodies should now look at this and come forward with their recommendations before we consider detailed legislation. I hope very much that the Minister will agree to initiate that.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 47. The findings of the different charitable organisations about the prevalence and impact of payday loans are rather chilling and depressing. I will not deploy all the statistics referred to by noble Lords today and in Committee other than to re-stress that Ofcom’s findings show that 80% of payday loan adverts are shown before the watershed. The Children’s Society has found that 55% of children aged 13 to 17 recognise the name of at least three payday lenders—I would have been distressed if my children had known that information at that age—and that parents aged 18 to 24 years increasingly see payday loans as a normal means of money management: almost 40% of them have used payday loans at some point. That is all illustrative of a serious problem.
As many noble Lords have articulated, the characteristics often revealed by people who take out payday loans are all too familiar. A high proportion of borrowers experience financial distress, many come from less well off socioeconomic groups, and few have assets. A significant number of borrowers have two or more loans, which exposes them to unsustainable and spiralling debt. Many borrowers get these payday loans to cover basic needs, including the needs of their children, yet many are in acute repayment difficulties. According to the CMA, more than one-third of loans were not repaid on time or at all, which often brings considerable consumer harm relative to the amounts that were borrowed in the first instance.
Successfully addressing the problem of high-cost credit requires a multifaceted approach and, as my noble friend Lord Mitchell acknowledged, much action has already been taken by organisations such as the FCA. However, taking steps to protect children from exposure to advertising for high-cost loans, which is both ill suited for the children and corrosive in its impact upon parents and families as a whole, is an essential ingredient of that multifaceted approach.
Children exposed to particularly suggestive loan adverts pressurise their parents to take out those loans to buy things. Yet we know that families trapped in problem debt are more than twice as likely to argue about money problems, which leads to stress on family relationships and causes emotional distress to the children. Many noble Lords have referred to pester power, which arises from children’s exposure to payday loan advertising. However, the potency of that power is so great because people love their children. If you are on a low or modest income, it is very hard to say no to your children if they are missing out on social activity or feel disadvantaged in comparison to their school friends. How much harder it is at Christmas to say no to the children you love, when you have no money and your children do not understand why they cannot have something in their stocking when you just need to respond to those funny furry grannies who are offering you some money.
Pester power has a powerful emotional pull on parents, and the advertising has such a powerful impact on the children. This advertising masks a business model that is based on exercising great persuasive power on low-income households and their children. There is a continuing need to address the behaviour of firms in this high-cost consumer credit market. These companies have substantial funds for marketing and advertising. That allows them to have great persuasive power over vulnerable people and their children. The prevalence of the advertising has an impact on many people’s choices. In the short term, there are the effects of pester power and increased debt; in the longer term, people see credit as the normative solution to managing their finances.
Even on the FCA’s own analysis, after the cap is introduced the proportion of borrowers who experience financial distress as a direct result of taking out payday loans is expected to remain as high as 40%. Notwithstanding the positive actions taken to date by bodies such as the FCA and the Advertising Standards Authority, there is still a clear and compelling need to send a strong and clear message by placing in statute the responsibility of high-cost lenders to run their advertising appropriately. If the advertising of alcohol and gambling can be heavily regulated to help prevent the normalisation of alcohol abuse, why on earth would one not want to take the fullest action to prevent the normalisation of the potentially harmful behaviour of taking out loans that are unaffordable and get you and your family into debt?
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referenced, the sheer quantity of adverts for payday loans seen by and impacting on children, young people and their parents made me shudder when I saw the figures. In 2012, 596 million adverts were seen by children compared to 3 million in 2008. If that is not an aggressive business plan, I do not know what is. That is 200 times more adverts over four years. Some organisations will quote aggregate statistics to seek to state more modestly the level of payday loan advertising, but we should remember that the charitable organisations are so concerned about this because they see and measure the concentration of risk from these adverts on vulnerable families. Never mind the aggregate figures: my children and I are not vulnerable to payday loans, because I have a good income. It is the concentration of risk from these adverts on these children and these families that poses the great risk. We need to remember that what may be a small amount taken out in a loan that is borrowed for a pressing purpose becomes a much bigger debt if the loan is not repaid.
The current advertisements, which other noble Lords have referred to, contain jolly characters. They can appear funny or appealing; they have catchy jingles. In fact, they have lots of characteristics but usually not the obvious characteristic, which is to make absolutely clear that they are presenting a very serious form of credit with high risk. An advert can have a cuddly granny, but it will not spell out the risk to your family if you pester your parents to take out such a loan.
Of course, children watch programmes and adverts in other ways and at other times. People are changing their viewing habits and watching programmes on laptops, tablets and iPads. That, too, needs to be addressed. Protection for children needs to be modernised, but that is not an argument against the watershed period remaining sacrosanct for as long as possible and keeping those adverts away from children before the watershed. This really is a compelling amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
This amendment, which was Amendment 103 in Grand Committee, received solid support from both sides of the House. Like the previous amendment I moved relating to Ofcom’s powers, it needs and deserves a better answer. To that extent it is a probing amendment, but I hope that I shall be using a fairly sharp stick to probe with.
The DCMS seems utterly determined not to give Ofcom any Christmas presents this year. The amendment addresses one of the fundamental rights of consumers—the ability to switch suppliers. It would introduce gaining provider-led switching across the communications sector. This is an opportunity to act in the interests of consumers and competition. Not only is this the Government’s own policy, as set out in Connectivity, Content and Consumers—a document issued last July—but it is supported by every party in this House.
Legislative change is also supported by Ofcom. In a letter written on 13 November to my noble friend Lady Jolly, Ed Richards, the chief executive, made it clear that without the support of legislation it would be difficult, if not impossible, to drive through this vital consumer change. The current evidence threshold to make the case is high and inevitably leads to expensive litigation. The amendment would enable Ofcom to address switching issues more quickly and directly.
In the light of the replies in Grand Committee to my noble friend Lord Stoneham, who ably put forward the argument there, I have retabled the amendment to give the Government a second opportunity to demonstrate that they stand firmly behind consumers and against vested interests and proponents of anti-competitive practices. Whoever replies to the amendment on behalf of the Government will need to address the issues raised so ably by my noble friend Lord Stoneham, such as the consumer harm created by the current complicated regime—witness the 1.2 million mobile customers who are double-billed or experience a total loss of service—and the hassle and confusion for consumers, which ultimately deter them from switching provider. The car insurance market, for instance, has a switching level of 38%, compared with 9% in the mobile and broadband market, and just 3% in digital television. There are also the poor retention practices caused by the current system, which forces customers to contact their original supplier and often leads providers to operate barriers to switching.
The Consumer Rights Bill offers a window to act in the interest of consumers, especially the vulnerable and those who do not know how to game the system. As discussed in Grand Committee, this would bring mobile communications in line with banking and introduce GPL systems across the sector, not only making switching easier for the consumer, but ensuring a more competitive market that works to drive down prices. My noble friend Lady Jolly insisted in Grand Committee that more work needs to be done to consult before the Government could accept a change to Ofcom’s duties such as this, but surely the need for change could not be plainer. That has been evident since 2007.
This is supported further by the recent evidence given to the House of Lords Communications Committee by Ed Richards, the CEO of Ofcom. He said:
“We have to pursue the consumer interest, but if we believe that the consumer interest lies in moving to gaining provider led, we have to demonstrate that at every level. If we had legislation that said Ofcom should start with the presumption that gaining provider led is the right answer, that changes the onus of responsibility quite significantly. In the litigation and the appeals, and the process of stopping us moving in that direction, which people will understandably enter into, that would make, in my judgment, quite a significant difference. If you start by making the case and bringing the evidence to bear with a presumption from Parliament that easy switching based on gaining provider led is where we are guided to begin, then I think the burden of responsibility on us to demonstrate that it is in the consumer interest is significantly easier”.
I thought, as did many of us, that Mr Richards made a very strong case before the committee. The amendment is also supported by the leading consumer rights group Which?. In its A Government for All Consumers, it rates simpler switching as the key policy priority for telecoms. In the Government’s previous response to this amendment it was stated that the Connected Continent package being discussed by the EU may deliver reform. However, Ed Richards’ letter to my noble friend has confirmed that progress is unlikely any time soon in that respect. What is the alternative—years of litigation on every change to GPL switching? It seems extraordinary that the basic case is that we have to wait until the whole EU does anything under the Connected Continent package before acting ourselves in the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. As I said in Committee, this is a very important change which is needed in this sector and follows what has already been done in banking and utilities. The current practice is anti-competitive because it reserves competitive offers for new and switching customers at the expense of existing customers. I accept that there are problems about how we can actually make the change. Ofcom clearly wants to do it. The complication arises because, as we know, the landline and broadband change applying to BT Openreach, which also affects Sky, TalkTalk, Post Office and EE broadband, is already in place, and now we want the final stage so that all the mobile operators are covered. There is also the issue of bundling as regards the connection with TV, satellite and so on. Ofcom is currently carrying out a consultation on that. We need to hear from the Government when that consultation is likely to be concluded, whether the Government fully support Ofcom in pushing that forward and whether Ofcom now has the power, in the Government’s view, to initiate it once the consultation is over.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, Amendment 49, which we support, would amend Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003, requiring Ofcom to promote competition and consumers’ interests by introducing a gaining provider led—or GPL—switching regime to the communications market.
It is obviously clear from what we have already heard and what we heard in Grand Committee that simple switching processes are vital to the health and future of all markets. While banking and energy customers are able to switch by contacting their new provider of choice, in mobile, pay TV and broadband customers have to contact their original provider before switching. The current losing provider led process is complicated and slow, works against consumers and distorts fair and open competition.
What is this mystery all about? As outlined by previous speakers, we have a situation where the Minister assured noble Lords, when she responded to this debate in Committee, that the Government have considerable sympathy for GPL switching in the UK. She said:
“In the Connectivity, Content and Consumers paper published last year, we emphasised that we want that across the board”.—[Official Report, 5/11/14; col. GC 692.]
That seems to be a supportive statement. Given that GPL switching already operates for fixed-line voice and broadband services delivered over the BT Openreach network, it is incomprehensible that it does not yet operate for mobile services or for pay TV. In Grand Committee, the Minister said that Ofcom had the power to mandate GPL switching for all communications services. However, as we have just heard, that does not seem to be Ofcom’s view. Indeed, so much does it disagree with what the Minister has said, it had to write to correct her after the debate in Grand Committee. It is worth quoting:
“We have said consistently that legislative reform to support GPL switching would enable us to address switching issues more quickly and directly, and make it easier for consumers to take advantage of the competitive UK communications market. Therefore we were pleased both with the government’s full support for Gaining Provider Led switching”—
in the July 2013 paper—
“and with the subsequent amendment tabled by Lord Clement-Jones … which would give effect to this aspiration by giving Ofcom a clear duty to mandate GPL switching”.
It is clear that Ofcom not only feels it does not have the power, but would welcome the certainty provided by legislation in the Bill. I suspect that that has more to do with the fact that this is a very litigious market within which a number of providers will probably seek judicial review on other issues if there is any doubt at all over whether the powers exist. It seems not so much a Christmas present but a necessary condition for the improvement of our markets that we should go ahead with this. I do not understand why the Government are reluctant to do so. I hope that they will be able to clear this up by supporting the amendment.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Lab)
My Lords, when this amendment was discussed in Grand Committee, I raised the question of the universal postal service. However, before I mention that, perhaps I may say that I fully support the terms of this amendment and, in particular, the need for people who are not technology-orientated to be able to use their normal method of payment and to receive their bills on paper in the way they always have done without missing out on offers of discounts.
I return to the point made in Grand Committee about the effect on consumers of the universal postal service if something is not done very quickly. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister was kind enough to say that she would write. She did so and was able to reassure me that it was still the Government’s intention to maintain the universal service, as agreed in the Postal Services Act 2011. The problem is that the Ofcom review of the downstream access arrangements, which allow Royal Mail’s competitors to get in on the act and get their mail delivered on the cheap, at a cost to Royal Mail, is due to take place next year.
As I said, I am very grateful to the Minister for the information she supplied following the Committee stage, but will she use her best endeavours to get Ofcom to bring forward the review to allow a proper examination of the tariffs charged under the downstream access arrangements in order that we may save a good universal postal service for the consumer? That depends on whether the Post Office, and Royal Mail in particular, are able to maintain sustainability. A proper pricing method needs to be introduced and Royal Mail really cannot wait. I declare my interest as a former postman. I do not think that we can let Royal Mail stew for several more months. We need the review to start very quickly and we need to introduce proper pricing for this service. I support the amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for my noble friend’s amendment and also for what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, on maintaining the universal postal service. However, I think that other issues are involved here.
If somebody wants a paper bill, they should have the right to receive it, and I would have thought that the appropriate organisation to safeguard that would be the regulator of the appropriate utility. We need that for two reasons. The first is for identification. We know that people use utility bills for identification in credit checks and so on. Secondly, it is needed by people who do not have access to the internet.
However, progress is progress, and if it is cheaper to send out bills via the internet or by e-mail, consumers who opt for that should have the benefit of a discount, because the difference in cost is significant. I am afraid that we want to encourage that. At a time when everybody is very concerned about living standards and the cost of living, we should obviously support anything that reduces utility bills. Similarly, if it is cheaper for people to pay their bills by direct debit or by credit card rather than by cheque, the consumer should have the benefit of doing that. That is not to say that if somebody still wants a paper bill they cannot have it.
The problem with the amendment is that there will be misunderstandings. If the utility companies offer a discount, people will accuse them of charging them more for sending out a paper bill. However, the cost of doing so is higher, and I am afraid that the consumer should pay that if that is what they opt for. Of course, they should still have the right to receive a paper bill if they want it, but those who opt to pay by a cheaper method should clearly benefit. That is progress.
As I said in Committee, 50 years ago my father paid all his bills with cash, although he eventually moved to using a chequebook. My father is not alive but my mother-in-law, who is 93, has gone though exactly the same arrangement. She now gets us to pay by direct debit because that is easier and cheaper for her, and she should be allowed to benefit from that.
That is why I think that the amendment is misguided. There should be some protection, but I also think that consumers who opt for the cheaper method of payment should get the benefit of that.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I have heard what has been said about people who opt for paying their bills online, or whatever, and get a discount; that would be fine if everybody in the country had online access, knew how to work computers and knew exactly what they were doing. The reality is not like that. The most disadvantaged in our country do not have online access, including the elderly and those who live alone. The digital divide is increasing as we speak and it is very difficult—I am sorry, but on things such as utility bills, it is.
Secondly, if any noble Lord has tried to go online to pay a utility bill, particularly electricity and gas together, it is a nightmare. It is not exactly an easy option, and then a page comes up saying, “Do you want to chat?” and, of course, you cannot chat at all, it all has to be typed. I mean, what about people who have problems with their eyesight? It is tiny print. I have done it, but, my goodness, I swore at it. It took me about an hour to set up the thing. I can see people older than me—if there are such—struggling with this. It is not good. I think, for all sorts of reason, that until we have broadband in every house and a computer at everyone’s bedside, so to speak, we should carry on. Otherwise we will increase the digital divide and increase the disparity between those who have and those who have not.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raises once again the really important issue of the protection of our children from the dangers of the internet, and specifically the pornography and violence that can be accessed too easily.
However, there are problems with opting in to internet content filters, which remain crude, even though there has been some improvement in recent years. The problems of the opt-in system proposed by the noble Baroness are twofold. The first is that it is possible for too much to be filtered out. Imagine a young person who is not sure about their sexuality. The words “homosexual”, “lesbian” and “transgender” would be filtered out, and organisations such as Stonewall, which does excellent work with confused young people, will find that their websites are banned by these filters. More sophisticated versions can filter out skin. Here there is an attempt to filter out pornographic images, but these filters have also banned the Daily Mail, which had a photograph of a woman in a bikini on the front page. The second problem is that internet-knowledgeable young people find mechanisms to work their way round filters, through murky rings round the usual internet. Most parents do not understand or know about these and will assume that their child is protected, whereas the reality is that they are not.
I am also concerned about the proposals in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, which say that Ofcom has a duty to filter content,
“by age or subject category by providers of internet access services and mobile phone operators”;
and, in subsection (9), that,
“OFCOM may designate any body corporate to carry out its duties under this section”.
Is Ofcom now going to start classifying content? Even if it designates the British Board of Film Classification, that is fine for the areas that the BBFC covers—film, video, video games, mobile phone content that you can buy—but it does not cover other material, especially private, and we know from the revenge porn debate in your Lordships’ House recently that this is one of the first areas of porn that young people see. It will always be impossible to cover private material, so there will always be a way in.
There is also a further issue about young people who work their way round filters, usually in a ridiculously short time. Would that young person, often under 18, be committing a crime, or would their parents be committing one for not supervising their internet use? The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre website for parents, children and teachers, called “Thinkuknow”, advocates the best way forward. It talks about parental involvement with their children, and for parents, teachers and friends to alert young people to the dangers of the web. Sex and relationship education in schools is increasingly including teaching about the dangers and problems with porn. The website states:
“Parental controls will never make the internet 100% ‘safe’. They should not be used as a substitute for communicating safety messages to your child. Make sure that you talk to your child about their behaviour online and remember, your home is not the only place they will be accessing the internet!”.
An opt-out, rather than an opt-in, system leaves the control with the parents. They cannot relax and assume their children are safe—nor should they—and they are more likely to have sensible conversations with their children than parents who believe they are covered by an opt-in system.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, has just made one of the most extraordinary series of arguments against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. He seems to suggest that because filtering systems are imperfect it would be better not to require filtering systems to be in place in the first instance. We all recognise—the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made this clear when she introduced her amendment—that this was just one of a number of things that need to be done. However, the concept that because there is not perfection in the art of filtering out pornographic, violent or dangerous images, therefore you should not attempt to do it, seems a particularly bizarre position to take.
The noble Lord also suggested—and I have read carefully the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—that if we were not careful we would criminalise children who found their way past these filters and their parents for not adequately protecting them. However, there is nothing in the amendment which creates a criminal offence for a child to try to get past a filter.
The amendment is about creating a sensible framework so that the internet service providers have an obligation to put the filters on as a default—that is essentially what this means—and that there should then be a series of hurdles that have to be passed before that default filter is removed. It also requires Ofcom to promote best practice, to set standards in the way in which the filter operates and to develop an age verification policy. This is long overdue not only in this area but also in other areas where children need to be protected or adults need to be prevented from accessing material which is only for children, which is the other side of the same coin. All of this is eminently sensible material.
The Government think that this is not necessary because self-regulation operates so wonderfully. The problem with self-regulation in this instance is that although the three or four most responsible internet service providers may take these steps and do what is necessary, the others will not. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, cited the example of the internet service provider that, in its promotion material, makes a positive virtue of the fact that it does none of these things. It is essentially saying, “Come to us because there are no safeguards whatever”.
I hope the Minister will either accept the amendment or agree to have urgent discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and those who are advising her on this issue to see whether it is possible to develop something that meets these requirements. It is quite clear that we are not taking seriously the fact that children are accessing extremely nasty and dangerous material. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, gave some sad, tragic and awful examples of where children have acted on such material. We know that children and teenagers act impulsively. The brain development has not yet occurred which enables them to give proper consideration to and have understanding of the consequences of their actions and what that means.
Under those circumstances, not trying to create the safest possible environment for them, and not trying to create a situation in which the default starting position is that filtering systems are in place, even if some of them are not as good as they might be, is completely irresponsible. I hope the Minister will tell us either that the Government are prepared to accept this principle or, if they have some difficulties with the way in which this is presented, agree to have urgent discussions with the noble Baroness to try to put this matter on track.