Budget Resolutions

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

There are things to welcome in the Budget when it comes to helping people struggling with hardship and debt, but they are more about tinkering than about providing solutions to the underlying problems. I welcome the extension to the household support fund, which is distributed by local councils and is a crucial lifeline for desperate families, but it is only for six months. That is wholly inadequate given the scale of the problem.

Increasing the repayment period for households on universal credit that take out budgeting advances from 12 months to 24 months is clearly helpful, especially for those struggling to make ends meet or coping with an emergency, but that still leaves millions of people on universal credit subject to unaffordable deductions from their benefits to repay other Government debts. Those deductions from an amount of money that is frankly too little to live on in the first place cause real hardship.

We have to put those small changes in the context of a cost of living crisis that is affecting millions of people. StepChange says that two in five people are currently struggling to keep up with household bills and credit commitments, and its advisers regularly speak to clients struggling to meet even the most basic needs, such as getting a healthy meal and keeping the heating on. They are also increasingly seeing people on negative budgets, which means that they do not have enough income to meet their necessary outgoings, let alone put towards paying off their debt. A new report published today by Christians Against Poverty highlights that and the fact that many people lack credit, but I am not sure the Government recognise the problem as well as those charities do. That is why people need more help with the fundamentals, such as council tax and energy bills. Where is the much-needed council tax support scheme and a social tariff for energy? Those changes would make a real difference.

We also need major changes to the kinds of debt solutions that advice agencies can offer. The announcement of the scrapping of the up-front £90 application fee and the uplift to the vehicle value to qualify for debt relief orders is a start, because debt relief orders were a real barrier to those in financial hardship who had to find £90 before they could even deal with their debts. The statement on financial vulnerability is welcome, but it is estimated that an extra 556,000 debt relief orders will be applied for—a 75% increase on 2023. The statement asserts that individuals will be put in contact with free debt advice where appropriate, so my question to the Chancellor is: where will the extra money come from to pay for the additional debt advice? The free advice sector is already overloaded. Debt advisers are working beyond their capacity and suffering burnout, and many are leaving the sector, despite their commitment to it. More and sustained funding is urgently needed.

Enough with tinkering around the edges. We need a system of simple and straightforward debt solutions, and we must ensure that people, including those on negative incomes, are always able to access the solution that best suits their needs. One part of the solution has to be to reduce creditors’ reliance on bailiffs, whose fees, which rose substantially last year in the middle of a cost of living crisis, are simply added to people’s debts, making them less and less affordable. Bailiffs are often part of the problem, not the solution. We have to encourage creditors—including public sector organisations, the Government and local authorities—to embrace a fairer and more effective system that prioritises affordable payment plans over the seizure of goods.

Of course, we need to prevent people from falling into debt in the first place, so we must look at the issues more holistically. The causes and solutions are complex. Many people affected by debt have multiple categories of debt, spanning lots of regulatory regimes. That complexity is replicated across Government and Whitehall, and laws and regulations span several Departments. For example, the regulation of “buy now, pay later” firms, which is far too delayed—I was really sorry to see that it appears to have been kicked into the long grass—is the preserve of the Treasury. Bailiff fees are an issue for the Ministry of Justice, and prepayment meters are the responsibility of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Department for Work and Pensions looks after deductions from universal credit, and rent arrears are dealt with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—and that is not a complete list. Actually, all those Departments need to work together, and any policies need to have a financial inclusion impact assessment. That would stop many of the policies that are pushing people into more hardship and debt.

This may sound a little strange, but I am looking to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill to regulate e-scooters that use lithium-ion batteries, which will come under the Department for Transport. This is a financial inclusion matter, because it is often the cost of living that causes people to search for cheap bargains online that turn out to be anything but and are actually dangerous.

I will not pretend to have all the answers to the complex issues, but I do know that we have to have a joined-up approach to solving them. Far too many people in our country are struggling with what seems like hopeless debt, and they gain little from the tinkering and short termism of this Budget.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Angus Brendan MacNeil.

Cost of Living Increases

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

This cost of living crisis is “unlike anything we’ve seen”. Those are the words of Citizens Advice, which is truly on the frontline when it comes to the real bread-and-butter problems people face.

We know that the rising cost of essentials impacts those on the lowest incomes the most. I used to talk about bumps in the road—unexpected life events that derail people, such as job loss or bereavement—but increasing numbers of people are simply running out of road. There is more debt and more unmanageable debt, and more demand for advice services. StepChange and Citizens Advice both say that the size and scale of the debt crisis is unlike anything they have seen before.

The debt crisis means more borrowing, too. StepChange has found that people who use credit cards and overdrafts to pay for essentials, as more and more people do, are 10 times more likely to be in problem debt than those who do not. Some 1.4 million people are relying on high-cost credit to cover rent and other household bills.

There is also a relatively new phenomenon: the negative budget. This is when, even after debt advice sessions and budget counselling, a client’s income is not enough to meet their essential outgoings. Half of Citizens Advice clients and a third of StepChange clients are in that predicament. That is particularly worrying because it requires a rethink of how to support the most financially vulnerable. Yes, there are practical measures, but we need to better fund our advice agencies, which are seeing an enormous increase in demand. We have to be careful that this includes provision for face-to-face advice in addition to virtual advice, because people sometimes need to see a trusted adviser before going to another channel.

We need to overhaul the type of debt solutions that advice agencies can offer. I welcome the breathing space that gives debtors respite from their creditors while they get their finances on track. I also welcome the expanded access to debt relief orders and the fresh start that bankruptcy can bring, but the up-front application fees are pricing people out of these options with nowhere to go. Applying for a debt relief order costs £90 and declaring bankruptcy costs £680, and those are up-front fees. They are simply not affordable for people who need such options, particularly those with negative budgets, and we need to consider how to fund them.

We should also be wary of individual voluntary arrangements. Too many people are forced into IVAs without the impartial advice they need to ensure they are the best option for them. In fact, it is probably time to undertake a full, holistic review of debt solutions. We need a simple, straightforward system that ensures people in debt are always able to access the system that best suits their needs, through independent, impartial advice that is suited to the individual. Such a review must look at enforcement, as the use of bailiffs is far too widespread. I was pleased to sponsor the launch of the Enforcement Conduct Board, but it needs to be put on a statutory footing. It is vital that creditors have to use a bailiff that is accredited by the ECB, and that includes central and local government, who are some of the worst offenders.

There is no easy solution to the cost of living crisis, but for those who have reached the end of the road and can see no way out of their debt, we need to move from temporary fixes and piecemeal solutions to a long-term, sustainable plan.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Community Debt Advice Services

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reductions in community debt advice services.

It is a pleasure to serve, even if very briefly, under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who have supported me on this issue from the very beginning and who are all here today.

I will start by giving a brief outline of the cost of living crisis and then go into the importance of face-to-face debt advice, before looking at the potential model that the Money and Pensions Service will introduce and finishing with my specific requests for the Minister. For brevity, I will refer to the Money and Pensions Service as MaPS; otherwise, we will end up spending an awfully long time just on the title.

A survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in early October this year showed that the number of UK households that are behind on rent, bills or debt repayments has trebled since the pandemic hit, and now stands at nearly 4 million. The pandemic has dragged families who were previously just about managing into arrears on essential bills, and we know that economic pressures are getting worse. Those in receipt of universal credit are beginning to feel the effects of the £20-a-week cut—a cut that Labour, of course, opposed. The ban on evictions has ended, domestic fuel prices are rising and the collapse of providers means that many people have already been transferred to new companies on higher tariffs. As fixed-term plans end, more people will face increased energy bills, and that is before the energy cap is uplifted in April. The Chancellor has it in his powers to reduce VAT on fuel but has chosen not to do so. Workers also face an increase in national insurance. Inflation is rising and is now around 4%, and many expect it to remain at that level until mid-2022.

This is all creating a cost of living crisis, and an increasing number of people will find themselves needing advice and support with debt—many for the first time. Currently, debt advice is provided by a network of local providers and national charities such as Citizens Advice, and they are funded through nine regional grants from MaPS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on her well-informed and passionate speech.

We know demand for debt advice services is high and likely to increase, because personal debt is soaring, because of rising energy and food bills, and the end of furlough and debt payment holidays. Those schemes did quite a lot to put off the problem, but it never went away. About 4 million low-income households in the UK are behind on their rent, essential bills and debt payments. That figure has grown threefold since the pandemic, and coupled with that, there have been big changes to the commissioning of debt advice. That was on 16 July, when we had hoped the pandemic was coming to an end, but it is probably still carrying on, so is this the right time for a new and completely different approach?

It is really welcome that MaPS is investing more money in debt advice, and I also welcome the fact that it is looking at the wellbeing of advisers. Debt advice puts a considerable strain on those advising: quite often, the people who come in are at the end of their tether. There was a black joke in the citizens advice bureau I worked at that when somebody came in with a bulging carrier bag, it was going to be a debt client, and the bag would be full of bills that people could not open. They had put them behind the clock until the clock fell off the mantelpiece, and then they would seek debt advice. That was not just those who could not cope, but people from all walks of life, including professional people. Debt has a particular impact on individuals. It often leaves people feeling shame that they are in this position and cannot do what they want for their families. That is wrong, but it is how people feel, and we cannot get away from it.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I know that my hon. Friend is an expert in this area, not least because of all of the years that she worked with the CAB. Would she say something about the importance of the holistic approach to advice? This is very often not just about debt, but other issues, including domestic violence. In my experience as a criminal lawyer, people often get into all sorts of difficulties as a result of other factors. Indeed, the problem is often that people have not been pointed in the right direction on issues such as the benefits that they are entitled to, but do not actually claim.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will be moving on to discuss the wraparound provision, which does not just cover debt advice. We cannot just see debt as the problem: the important thing is the person who has the problem, and we have to deal with all their problems through that person-centred approach. It is no good just dealing with a person’s debt if they also have an employment problem or a housing problem that needs to be solved. We have to look at everything in the round.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Understanding how to manage our money effectively can be really hard, as well as support after debt has been accrued, so does the hon. Member agree that real-life money management education should be provided much earlier in life?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I do agree, but I do not think there is a silver bullet. Some of the problem is that there just is not enough money to go around, and it does not matter how well a person manages their money if they do not have enough to go around. Money management education is one of the tools of the trade, but it is not a silver bullet.

As I was saying about the new MaPS contract, it is good to look at the wellbeing of the advisers. I have heard that the debt advice peer assessment scheme has caused advisers considerable strain, with people having to do two web chats at once, which is really not feasible: they have to concentrate on the individual. This focus on wellbeing is acceptable, but I worry about the nine regional branches for debt advice going. About half of the money will go to the three national digital and phone-based services centres in the north, the midlands and the south, which will largely be at the expense of face-to-face provision, and providers can bid for only two of those. That element of competition worries me a bit. We all know that advice agencies are competitive: we have had to be, because we are competing for a limited pot of money. However, setting people up against each other is not the way to do it. Collaboration is the key with advice agencies, and we need to see more of that. I do not disagree with contracts—I think they are a way forward—but I do think we need to look at the way in which the contract is tendered and, in particular, how it can promote collaboration.

The 50% cut in the regional services is another worry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said, it is vital that there is partnership between the local agencies, and those partnerships are often built up on the ground with local knowledge. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) mentioned, it is the wraparound casework support; the writing and phoning creditors; the knowledge of bailiffs in the area and how the local authorities work; and having those personal contacts that are vital. We know that people who have mental health issues often need the comfort of a face-to-face service. They may well be able to move on to a telephone service at some point in future, but an experienced adviser will be able to say when that point is.

I am also concerned about the nature of the contract. A number of smaller agencies are being put off from bidding because payment in arrears is a real problem. Advice agencies cannot cope with payment in arrears. They need to know that the money is there up front. They are not paying their advisers and rent in arrears; they are paying for everything and it is a month-on-month worry. The full responsibility for the TUPE arrangements is a problem, as is clawback, which needs to be specified as to the quality targets and the amounts.

I am pleased that in my discussions with MaPS it said it would not be a month-on-month target, because all of us in the advice field know that December sees a drop in cases, whereas January and February see a big rise. The demand for debt advice is not stable month on month; it goes up and down. I would also like to see time targets, not numbers. Number targets encourage short, easily dealt with cases, whereas the people who need face-to-face support need time to deal with complex debts and the emotional and other associated issues.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the important issue of face-to-face contact and the empathy needed, particularly for very vulnerable families obviously in need, will the hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the likes of Citizens Advice, of which she is well aware, and other groups, such as Christians Against Poverty, that offer empathy and a counselling role to assist people through those problems, and in calling for more support for such groups?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I certainly would. A friendly face is important, somebody outside the family who is not judging, but dealing with someone as an individual with problems, and not just as a problem. Many local providers of face-to-face debt advice have felt unable to bid because of the risks involved in entering the contracts, and the large size of the contract, as well as the lack of any allowance for inflation at a time when inflation is expected to rise.

The specifications place undue risk on the contractors, requiring them to forecast volumes of people over the first three years of the contract. There has been a pandemic and a rise in inflation; how are they going to predict what will happen in three years’ time? Three years ago, could we have predicted what was going to happen now? I do not think so. There is a worry that the small, local providers that rely on the MaPS funding may have to drop face-to-face services or close entirely. Many are not included in the tender bids and they do not have the size or resources to compete for the tender individually.

What assessment has been made of the loss of local services, those that are there now, and those that say they are likely to close if they do not get any funding from the contract? I hope that the shift from face-to-face is not motivated by cost-cutting. That is worrying because the cases are more complex and less capable of being dealt with through telephone and digital service.

Telephone services work where the debt is quickly identified and there is excess income that can be distributed to creditors in a debt management plan. That is when it works. There are fewer and fewer of those cases coming forward. Face-to-face services typically support clients with a wider range of problems, such as benefit claims, charitable applications, access to local welfare assistance schemes, that national and regional contracts are not aware of. Those services become more important because of the new help to claim contract that is being put out to tender, which takes out face-to-face entirely. That is a big mistake and will lead to a lot more debt in the future.

Clients who have complex interwoven problems, including debt, housing issues, mental illness and domestic violence, struggle to access and navigate online services. In my borough, in Wigan, people do not go online as much as in other boroughs. In fact, only a couple of years ago, 30% of people in Wigan said they had never been online. They would be particularly at risk.

It will hit vulnerable clients, less well-off people, young people and people with dependent children. We assume all young people go online to get help with their debt, but that is not the case. Quite often, when they are hit by debt for the first time, they do not know who to turn to. It is important that they can turn to an individual, who can say, “Okay, do this,” and then perhaps move them on.

The previous commissioning strategy seemed to better recognise that people in debt need access to a wide range of wraparound support, but that has now been superseded. How was that previous contract looked at? Why was it seen to be unsuitable in the future?

AdviceUK says that MaPS’ approach is wrong because it is rooted in a mistaken belief that debt is solely a problem of poor choices by individuals. That needs to be part of a wider conversation about welfare support for the most vulnerable, rising living costs, improving life chances, unstable and poorly paid work, which we know is a big driver of debt, and improving the credit industry, especially the way in which people on low incomes are treated by that industry and the products that are available to them, which often cost more and are less suitable.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that there needs to be a pause to this contract and that we need to look at it in the round, and whether it will improve the lives and the chances of people in debt. I would also like us to look at debt solutions and debt enforcement. We need to put more thought into how to prevent people from falling into debt in the first place, how to get more money into people’s pockets and how we deal with them when they get into debt.

Inevitably, people will get into debt. From the time that citizens advice bureaux were founded during the second world war, they have worked to put themselves out of business, but they are now needed more than ever. There is not going to be a solution that will ever bring an end to debt. We have to get solutions that make the lives of people in debt easier and more manageable, and certainly try to take the stigma away from debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

We do not want to lose quality of life, but we do need to deal with the reality of life. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) outlined in great detail the issues that most families feel—and address. It is easy for me to talk about time with the family, because it is my wife Sandra who chooses the Christmas gifts. She is better at it than me, and knows what the children want. The money we spend is disbursed as she sees fit. However, for other people, it will be a juggling exercise between buying Christmas presents and being able to afford the oil and electric bills. That is the issue and that is why I am here to speak on behalf of those constituents who are under great pressure.

The security is not there for many families. Rather than seeing disappointed faces on Christmas morning, people make purchases and live with the debt for months to come. Last week, in my local press back home, there was an indication that this year in particular, the issue for those who have maxed out their credit cards is that they will turn to payday loans. I have forever cautioned against that, because the reality will be extreme. There will be a pain-free two weeks, but then there will be a very painful month after Christmas. I have extreme concern for those people.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am about the rise in buy now, pay later debts? These are increasing exponentially; one advice agency said that 34% of people are now coming to them with buy now, pay later debts.

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly am concerned. I am going to give two examples of those who have had extreme difficulties. There are many groups in my constituency that do great work; Citizens Advice is one of them. I have dealt with Citizens Advice ever since I became an elected representative, first, as a councillor in 1985, then as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and now as a Westminster MP. I have a good working relationship and regular contact with Christians Against Poverty; they are inundated with people who have decided to make this new year the one when they get on top of their finances. Last year, CAP helped over 16,000 people with debt; they shared in the success of 2,500 becoming debt free—wow, it is a big day for people when they become debt free. It is so important. They helped almost 1,500 people through a covid-19 emergency appeal. Christians Against Poverty in my constituency are based at Thriving Life Church in Newtownards. I think probably all the churches have a help and advice service, similar to what Christians Against Poverty do. However, Thriving Life Church does particularly incredible work.

While I was sitting in this debate, I thought of one example—I am conscious of time and I want to be fair to other Members. On occasion I have had to contact Pastor Cotter of Elim Church, Newtownards, to deal with some personal debt issues that he has been able to help with. His ability to work through the mechanics of the mathematics and make sure that people get out the other side is incredible. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said in her introduction, and it cannot be emphasised enough, that this drives people to the very edge of desperation. I have seen that. Christians Against Poverty facilitate, through some 1,200 churches across the UK, help and advice to those families and individuals who have got themselves into difficulties with their money. Many of these are working people; they are the working poor. These are the people we are here to represent. They are people who have incredible financial difficulty, who are squeezed most by the removal of the tax credit bonus, and who are suffering most with the universal credit differences.

I am going to give another, desperate example. I know one young women in my constituency whose disability living allowance was turned down. Over the 7 months of her appeal process, she found herself in over £4,000 debt, through maxed-out credit cards and payday loans—she was absolutely in over her head. I know that this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but there must be some way of hurrying up the process. It eventually found in her favour after seven months, but that was seven months of excruciating worry where she was pushed to the point of suicide. This is no exaggeration, but by the time she came into my office she was sobbing her heart out, mortified and suicidal. I was so grateful that my staff knew who and where to send her—where she would receive help and compassion and where there would be no judgment.

People who max out their cards are scared, fearful, apprehensive and extremely worried. That is why Citizens Advice, Christians Against Poverty and other groups are so important, and that is why we as elected representatives make those points on behalf of our constituents. My constituent needed CAP’s help, and that is why I believe that CAP and other community debt organisations are essential in today’s climate. Not only do they help to take the stress of the phone calls and letters but they future-proof finances. In other words, they sort out people’s issues today as well as giving them advice for the future—it is important that they do not later fall back into debt—and teaching finance coping mechanisms. They go through day-to-day finances with savings schemes and allocate money for small treats—people need the small treats for their children and families that many of us take for granted, such as a cinema trip or the Chinese at the weekend—as they understand life and have the expertise and knowledge to teach others a better way of handling the stress and pressure of life.

Christians Against Poverty and other community debt advice providers save lives and prevent the break-up of family units with their support and help. I thank CAP in Newtownards, based at Thriving Life church, for all that it does. Community debt centres are lifelines, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they have funding available to help to cover the costs of their free services, which save lives and improve people’s quality of life. As we come towards Christmas, I remind people that there is a way to come to terms with crippling debt: take that first step of acknowledging your problems and seeking the help you need. People want to help you, and your MP will want to help. Do not wait for the new year to come. Do it now, and have your Christmas unburdened by the stress of debt that is weighing you down. Help is available—just ask. People are there who could help you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, Ms Bardell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to speak in the debate on behalf of the Government.

I have listened intently and carefully to all seven Back-Bench speeches, which have revealed considerable understanding of the complexity of the service delivery in constituencies across this country. There has also been significant commentary around the context in which our constituents find themselves at this incredibly difficult time. I will endeavour to answer the specific concerns raised about the recommissioning exercise by the Money and Pensions Service in a few moments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on the constructive tone and content of her speech, and on securing the debate.

I will begin with a deliberately unambiguous statement: the Government are committed to supporting the financial wellbeing of the most vulnerable in society, and to tackling problem debt. As reflected in the contributions to the debate, hon. Members will be well aware of the scale and breadth of the package that we put in place to protect jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic. It was one of the most comprehensive support packages in the world, but I recognise that it was never going to be comprehensive for every single need.

We recognise that individuals in problem debt require extra support to get their finances back on track, especially during this challenging and, to a degree, uncertain time. For that reason, we agreed to provide additional funding to the Money and Pensions Service for debt advice provision in England in 2020-21 and this financial year, on top of our wider coronavirus support package.

Several speeches referred to the difficulties in predicting demand and its distribution; indeed, MaPS acknowledged that, in terms of what it ended up needing for the 2020-21 financial year. That will always be a judgment call that it has to make very carefully, but the additional funding enabled the recruitment of more than 500 new debt advisers to provide additional debt advice capacity to meet the anticipated demand arising from the pandemic. Part of that additional funding was also allocated to providers to cover lost income from a key voluntary funding stream known as “fair share”.

I will say a little more about debt advice in a moment, but first I will highlight some of the things that the Government have done to help people in financial difficulty, because some speeches referred to that wider context. In May 2021, as I think the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) acknowledged, we launched the breathing space scheme, with cross-party support, where lenders agree to hold off with their fees and payment requests for 60 days. We have championed that scheme for many years and I am proud to see it up and running.

We will use similar principles of providing respite from bills and demands in the introduction of a statutory debt repayment plan, which is currently under development. Under that new plan, which will essentially give another mechanism for people to use when they are struggling with debt, people will enter formal agreements with creditors to repay their debts over a more manageable timeframe. We are obviously working very carefully with the sector to get that absolutely right.

As well as helping individuals to tackle problem debt, we are ensuring that they have access to fair and affordable credit. In the Budget, we introduced plans to provide £3.8 million for a pilot no-interest loans scheme, which Fair4All Finance is working with partners to design and deliver. It is my ambition, and that of the Government, that those loans will support people who are unable to access or afford existing forms of credit, and prevent them from falling into problem debt. During the debate, the uptick in buy now, pay later was mentioned. As I think we discussed in this Chamber last Tuesday afternoon, that is a priority for us as well, and I was grateful for the contributions from Members who were present.

The Treasury is working closely with the regulators and other Government Departments to help and protect people in financial difficulty. The Financial Conduct Authority regulates debt advisers, and recently published its consultation on debt packager firms. We believe that the FCA’s proposals will put a stop to bad practices in the sector and help to prevent consumer harm. We are also engaging closely with the Insolvency Service, which this summer raised the monetary eligibility limits for debt relief orders. Those changes will enable more people in financial difficulties to access a DRO and get a fresh start.

Let me turn to the specifics of MaPS’ debt advice commissioning exercise, which has occupied the lion’s share of time this morning. That exercise is an important step towards creating a better and more resilient debt advice sector. At the core of the contributions was a concern around the redistribution of face-to-face and online and other modes of delivery, and the outcome of the commissioning process. MaPS’ current commissioning model dates back many years, and some of its current grant agreements even predate its predecessor body, the Money Advice Service.

I listened carefully to the contributions on the complexity of the needs of individual constituents, and I respect the experience of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who have personal professional expertise in this area. It is important that we aim to achieve an outcome from the commissioning exercise that gives MaPS a better opportunity to manage performance and drive improvement, innovation and efficiency—improving the service that customers are offered and offering greater value for money, but not failing to recognise the complexity of the needs of those populations. That is in line with the Government’s wider approach on the funding that they give to charities, 80% of which is now on a contract basis.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle spoke of a number of concerns raised by the debt adviser community, individually, in representations to constituents and collectively through this process. A transition, such as the one proposed by MaPS, will require some changes and for the sector to adapt to them. The question is about to the pace and scale of those changes, which is the discussion that MaPS needs to resolve in the coming weeks. I am unable to comment on the specifics of the commissioning exercise. I do not run that, nor do my officials. There is a degree of commercial sensitivity around it.

This morning’s debate has put some detail on the nature of the concerns. I commit to ensuring that those concerns are represented fully to the leadership of MaPS as it undertakes this evaluation and moderation of the bids received. Once that is completed, MaPS will have a greater understanding of what the changes will mean to debt advice provision in England, including the proportion that will be delivered face to face. I can say that the Government have given MaPS a statutory duty to consider the needs of the most vulnerable.

Colleagues have raised issues of the unmet, or even undiagnosed, needs that come out of conversations, as well as case complexity and the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East about literacy and privacy. All funded services must be able to handle those complex cases, and MaPS needs to demonstrate that the commissioning exercise will achieve that, irrespective of the channel the cases come through.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Although we are discussing the MaPS contract, we have also heard a lot about clients’ mental health problems. Has the Minister had any discussions with other agencies—for example, clinical commissioning groups in the area of health—about commissioning services, such as Financial Shield, which help those in debt and with other problems? That will save the health service money as well.

Access to Cash

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) on securing the debate.

Cash may no longer be king, but it is still pretty royally used. Its use did drop during the pandemic, but NatWest says that cash use is now at 75% of pre-covid levels. There were 35 million separate cards used to withdraw cash in August. The average adult withdrew £1,500 in 2020.

After the last debate, I received two letters. I received one from an older lady, who said that the online she had ever used was a washing line, and she certainly did not want to know any more about it. I also had a letter from a young mum who relied on cash. She said that she used cash so that she did not overspend: she could not spend any more than she had in her purse.

People worry about safety and security. What happens if connectivity drops? What about the security of the physical card, particularly with the £100 limit? What about internet scams, fraud or card details being stolen? Some 15% of people still prefer cash to budget when shopping, and 28% worry about fraud risks. Post offices can help, but, with post office closures and the difficulty of getting people to take on post offices, they are not the answer any more.

As we have heard, it is also about where you can spend your money. The pandemic has led to more refusals. There was an attitude that cash is a bit dirty, and that was used as an excuse. In June, almost one in five people had cash refused by a business, and the majority of businesses said refusals were due to covid. We have to get away from that attitude. People still want to pay with cash: 81% want a range of payment options, including cash, and 24% would not shop at a business that did not take cash. It is vital to keep that choice. I commend the Which? cash pledge campaign to encourage businesses to sign up to accepting cash.

We cannot move to a two-tier society in which some people have the choice of any shop and others have their choice restricted. It is no good having cash available if the only local shop one can reach does not accept it. If cash acceptance is not going to be voluntary, we need legislation. I would like to know when the result of the White Paper consultation will be published. Is there a role for the Financial Conduct Authority in ensuring access? Although 90% of people will have access within 1 km, what about the 10% who will not? Who ensures that access? We need the legislation as well.

It is more and more urgent. Every day it becomes more difficult to row back. While cashlessness might suit many people, we cannot leave people behind. We cannot railroad them into accepting something that does not suit their needs. We cannot sleepwalk into a cashless society. As the song goes,

“you don’t know what you got til it’s gone”.

Covid-19: Household Debt

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on household debt.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The effects of covid-19 have been uniquely lopsided. We hear a lot about people making savings during lockdown; the Bank of England apparently estimates that at £150 billion overall and says that many people are able to pay off debt using income they have saved. That is all very well, but it glosses over the at least 11 million people—perhaps the most vulnerable in society—whose debt has increased because of covid-19. That is 11 million people who, by March 2021 according to StepChange, had built up £25 billion in arrears and debt to pay.

About 4.3 million people are now behind on bills such as council tax, rent or fuel, and the average debt is higher too. According to independent polling, 14 million people have suffered an income shock over the course of the pandemic, with almost half of those people turning to crisis borrowing to cover essential expenditure. The Money and Pension Service found that 9 million people have had to borrow money in the last year to buy food and to pay essential bills—whether via credit cards, overdrafts or, if they are very lucky, family and friends. According to Standard Life, one in 10 of all households were facing serious financial difficulty, with the majority in arrears on at least one bill.

Loss of income is, of course, at the heart of the increase in debt. StepChange says that more than 19 million adults experienced some loss of income during the pandemic. The package of help from the Government has been a lifeline for so many in crisis, because of lost incomes and loss of jobs. However, welcome as they are, in many ways they are going to simply delay the inevitable because they are expiring or due to expire in September. When the various schemes come to an end, we can only expect the situation to get worse. Some advice agencies are talking about a tsunami of debt. It is a highly dramatic image, but maybe not far from the truth.

We like to think that covid-19 has been a great leveller—that we are all in it together—but the fact is that the increased debt burden has had a disproportionate impact on the least well off and most vulnerable in society. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that the poorest 20% of the population saw a decline of £170 per month in their savings during the pandemic, while research from Citizens Advice showed that young people, people with dependent children, black, Asian and minority ethnic people, disabled people and renters were far more at risk of falling behind on essential bills such as council tax repayments. People living in places with average earnings lower than £28,000 a year—such as my own constituency in the Wigan borough, where average earnings are just over £18,000—are, according to the Centre for Cities, significantly more likely to be indebted than the more affluent areas in the south. How are the Government proposing to deal with this disparity?

Families with children have been perhaps the hardest hit of all. Again according to StepChange, one in five parents who has suffered a hit to their income from covid says that they or their children have had to skip meals, ration utilities, or go without some appropriate clothing for the weather. That debt also comes from increased expenditure: families with children, especially those whose children have been at home rather than school, found themselves spending more money, not less, on food and other essentials.

Poorer households who spend the majority of their money on essentials did not experience the drop in non-essential expenditures that others reported during the pandemic, and these people quite often pay more for their goods and services than the better-off. As Fair By Design has demonstrated, a clear poverty premium is in operation. It has calculated that this costs the average low-income household £490 a year and, for more than one in 10 low-income households, at least £780 a year.

Low-income households have also been more impacted by another covid-19 trend, namely the move away from cash. Some commentators speak as if its demise is a wholly good thing, but the fact is that many millions of people rely on cash for daily transactions, especially those on low incomes who see it as an excellent budgeting tool. I am pleased that the Treasury is now consulting on giving the public the legal right to access cash a reasonable distance from their home. I will be interested to see how that will work, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) will have much more to say about the issue. I also welcomed the announcement in the Budget that £3.8 million will be available to fund a no-interest loan scheme. Again, the devil will be in the detail, but the fact is that such a scheme needs to be rolled out quickly if it is to help with the fallout from covid-19.

I have been a vocal critic of the harm done by both payday lenders and rent to own. More recently, we have seen the rise of a new product—buy now, pay later—whose products, I note, have been rebranded as a naughty little treat for women. Research from Which? has disproved the myth that the biggest users of this type of credit are young single women: it found that the biggest group are women with children who have other forms of credit debt and who are using it to buy essential items. The Financial Conduct Authority has said that it will regulate this industry, too: the sooner it does so, the better. I urge the Minister to look at the remit of the FCA to allow it to be proactive when new products emerge that may cause consumer harm, rather than having to wait until harm has been demonstrated. We also need to encourage a savings culture—there could be a whole other debate on how we encourage people with low and fluctuating incomes to save.

I have spoken on a number of occasions about the need to regulate the bailiff industry. With debt to both national and local government increasing during the pandemic, now is the time to tackle this issue. The Government should lead by example by reforming the way in which they recover debt such as council tax arrears, so that local authorities put a clear focus on affordability and fair treatment. We need nothing less than a new debt management Bill to write off historic tax credit debts, embed fairness principles in statute, and establish a bailiff regulator with statutory powers to protect financially vulnerable individuals. I hope the Minister agrees with that.

There are some measures that could be taken to reduce the amount and impact of debt. Enforcement action should be halted for debts built up as a result of coronavirus; non-priority benefit deductions from universal credit should cease; and plans should be brought forward to extend repayments over a longer period, as well as making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent in order to give people the certainty and security of having enough to live on. Does the Minister agree that removing any money from those on the lowest incomes would inevitably create more debt and hardship?

I also believe that now is the time for a full holistic review of all debt solutions to be undertaken. We need a simple, straight-forward system that, crucially, ensures that people in debt are able to access the solution that best suits their needs. The system has grown in a piecemeal way; we need to fully reform it.

Breathing Space is really welcome, but the 60 days should be flexible to allow people more time to recover if they have reduced income or debts because of covid-19. Other measures that could help include targeted debt write-down of priority arrears—rent, council tax and so on—and longer-term protections so that households can safely address covid-related debts over a more sustainable timeframe.

Some have suggested establishing a special Government fund to provide grants to pay off and cancel all unavoidable debt accrued by households during the lockdown period. Reset The Debt argues that such a fund would make the money already spent on economic recovery worth it for many families, and would release them to be more economically productive in the future. StepChange suggests a covid rent debt fund specifically for private renters, to ensure that the Government honour their pandemic promise that no renter will lose their home. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on both schemes.

We also need to better fund our advice agencies, which expect to see an enormous increase in demand for their services once furlough ends. They are now struggling with a serious income shortfall because people have not been visiting them while measures have been in place to mitigate the problems with finance, but those people are building up problems for the future. Such advice agencies offer free debt advice services based on a comprehensive assessment of a person’s situation and then provide practical help and support for however long it is needed. The increase in funding from the Money and Pensions Service is welcome, but applying contract rules rather than grant funding will impose VAT and remove most of that benefit. Could that be looked at again, as it appears to be giving with one hand and taking back with the other?

It would be a scandal if the Government’s package of support merely delayed the onset of unmanageable debt. If we truly want to help struggling people to get back to normal life when the crisis is over, we cannot simply abandon them when support ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue [V]]

Thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Bone. I thank all the Members who contributed for their passionate, well-informed speeches on this issue, and I thank the Minister. Many good initiatives have been put forward, but there is a lot more that we can do. We do not want the debt crisis to turn into another symptom like long covid—a long debt crisis. We need to turn this into an opportunity. There are opportunities—to remove the shame from debt; to look at the causes of debt; and to look at creative solutions, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon. Not all of them should be loans. There will be a need for grants for people who are so mired in debt that they cannot see their way out. There is an opportunity to look both at how we can prevent debt and how we can help those who fall into debt.

I fear that if we do not seize those opportunities we shall be back here repeatedly, having this debate for many years ahead. While we debate this subject in Parliament, my constituents and people across the country will be suffering. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, they will be finding that debt has turned into destitution, and that is something that we all need to be aware of.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on household debt.

Financial Services Bill

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate in support of new clause 7, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who I gather will speak shortly. It is absolutely vital that we accelerate regulation of this newly emerging sector before we see the sort of problems that emerged in the rent-to-own sector in recent years.

I am glad to hear that the Government, the FCA and the sector recognise that regulation is necessary, but I also note that there is little consensus over what that regulation should consist of, nor what legislative vehicle it could be contained within. I further note that support from the sector is conditional on it being, in its view, in consumers’ interest. I am not sure it should be the judge of what is in consumers’ interest.

Clearly, it is far better for people who can afford to pay just once to do so, but I recognise that there is a legitimate market for a well-regulated “buy now, pay later” sector. However, it has to ensure that consumers are not taken advantage of. The sector likes to point out that the fastest rate of growth is in the over-40 market, thereby suggesting that its users are among the more financially responsible, but younger customers represent the majority of those missing payments and putting themselves at risk by having recourse to risky forms of lending. As innovative as “buy now, pay later” might be, that innovation is driven by competition—by a desire for market capture by the major players. So while one proposes a voluntary code of conduct, another chooses not to sign up to it. That makes me worried as to the willingness of the sector to co-operate with the regulators. What we do not want to see is regulatory capture by these major players.

I want to ensure that those who miss their payments are unable to make further purchases with not only one provider, but all providers of BNPL. If Klarna prevents a further purchase by a consumer because they have already missed a payment, they should not be able automatically to switch to Laybuy, Clearpay or one of the other providers. Moreover, these providers should not be a default purchasing option on a website when a consumer seeks to make a purchase; this is a clear example of the growing lockdown phenomenon of ‘emotional e-commerce’. I recognise that this Bill is not perhaps the right vehicle to manage how the websites are laid out, but this is a clear driver in the growing use of this form of payment.

I have already seen the problem debt my constituents have accrued in the rent-to-own sector, and those firms also sought to portray themselves as acting responsibly to protect consumer interests. I do not want to see those same constituents using BNPL schemes and getting into a similar situation, with a similar rhetoric from those providers. Regulation is now needed sooner rather than later, before these commercial models become ever more entrenched. With every week that passes, the influence of BNPL increases, the more we see the adverts on the TV and the more we see it appearing when we make online purchases. The lack of consumer protection in this regard puts more of those purchasing online at risk.

I very much welcome what the Minister has had to say to me, both in the House and privately. I look forward to seeing the Woolard review and hearing the next steps that will be taken to make practical progress on this very pressing matter.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I, too, want to focus on new clause 7, but I also want to mention breathing space, which is addressed in new clauses 22 and 23, and the statutory debt repayment scheme, which is dealt with in clause 32. We all know that BNPL has exploded in the past year. More and more retail outlets, and even online gambling companies, are using it, and it is being sold to companies on the basis that, on average, customers spend 40% more. It is also being sold to customers as an easy way to spread the load, with the thought, “There are no credit checks so it is not debt.” But of course it is, because people are using someone else’s money to pay and it then has to be repaid. I looked into the business model for one company and found that 25% of its income is predicated on late fees and people being unable to pay on time. Surely that has to ring alarm bells, with the echoes of the high-cost lenders and their practices. The regulation is needed sooner rather than later and I look forward to a swift response to the Woolard review.

Breathing space is welcome, and I have long called for it; 60 days will often be enough, but there will be a need for flexibility in exceptional circumstances. The scheme was designed prior to the pandemic, where people are furloughed, have lost their job or have a period of illness, and 60 days is not long enough to give people time to recover from a temporary financial difficulty caused by the pandemic and set up a long-term solution. People affected by the pandemic simply need a bit more time to straighten themselves out. I also think that the midway review needs to be looked at again. It simply wastes time and resources, which are scarce in the debt field.

Breathing space alone is not enough, however, given the impact of coronavirus on household finances. Bailiffs’ visits should be suspended, as they were during the first national lockdown, and other enforcement action should be halted when a debt adviser alerts the creditor that a client has financial or other issues due to coronavirus. We should also be suspending the use of non-priority benefit deductions from universal credit and bringing forward plans to extend the repayments over a longer period.

Moving on to the statutory debt repayment plan, I am pleased that the intention is that people seeking debt advice should not be charged for any aspect of the plan. It has always seemed counterintuitive that people in debt should be charged to get out of the very same debt. However, there are areas that need to be tightened—for example, where creditors are objecting to the level of payments. That needs to be seen within the existing debt advice methodology and budget standards. We cannot have creditors objecting just because they do not like the level or they think that someone else has more. There is a common standard, and creditors need to accept that.

In general, the Bill is a welcome step forward in assisting people in debt, but the landscape of debt solutions is complicated and difficult to navigate. I believe that a full review of all debt solutions needs to be undertaken to clarify and simplify, and to ensure that people in debt are always able to access the solution that best suits their needs.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I rise to say just a few words about new clause 4 and amendment 7, both of which I support. New clause 4, on the facilitation of economic crime, has been ably tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who, together with me and many others across the House, has sought to drive forward this agenda. The agenda is driven forward by the Bill, which has been so ably handled by my hon. Friend the Minister. It goes with the grain of Government policy and builds on the changes already achieved. I do not think that the House should be divided on it today, but we should send a signal to the Government about the importance of pursuing this agenda.

We have, as I said, achieved considerable change. The right hon. Member for Barking and I managed to persuade the Government to introduce open registers of beneficial ownership, both for the overseas territories and now for the Crown dependencies. The Foreign Office was not in favour of that at the time, but it now strongly supports it, so progress can be made. We are building on the excellent G8, where these matters were first championed by David Cameron as Prime Minister, and also on the recent US legislation. The evidence of the Paradise and Panama papers showed without any doubt the sophistication of financial advisers and the fact that there is an inequality of arms in so much of this. They are ahead of the financial enforcement authorities, and we need to be aware of that. The Bill helps, but new clause 4 would drive the matter further forward in clamping down on the facilitation of economic crime. I hope that the Minister will send a clear message on that when he sums up. I would also say to him that the reforms to Companies House led the world, but the trouble is that Companies House has become a sort of library, rather than an investigator. What it needs is more resources, and I very much hope that he will make the point across Government that Companies House with more resources would be an extremely valuable tool in the fight against economic crime.

Amendment 7—the genocide clause, as it were—has been tabled so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He makes the point that money cannot somehow be divorced from its provenance. We have had much focus on money laundering, on dirty money and on money stolen by corrupt dictators from Africa, by business people and by warlords. Shining the light of transparency on this is incredibly important, and this is a good amendment because it underlines our abhorrence of genocide. I have worked with much pleasure with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on what the UN Committee that visited Burma and Bangladesh referred to as the genocidal activities over the Rohingya, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the human rights abuses in China. The House is right to take a very strong line on the issue of genocide. If global Britain means anything, it is driven by values. These values matter, and when regimes such as the Saudis, for example, butcher journalists in foreign consulates or imprison women campaigning for human rights, we should speak out.

Covid-19: Access to and Acceptance of Cash

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this debate. We have worked together on this issue for a number of years.

There is no doubt that the covid-19 crisis has hastened the move to a cashless society. Before the restrictions, people were talking about a timescale of years; it is now months, even weeks away. Cash does not seem to be king anymore. As my honourable colleague mentioned, it is coming back and is now at 75% of pre-covid levels—more in some areas—but surveys are being done at the moment to measure the use of cash and I worry that that will skew the results.

For many people, not having cash is a good thing. For an increasing number of people shopping online, using contactless payments and digital transfers, internet shopping is a boon, but it can increase the opportunity to scammers and fraudsters, and there are people who worry about using digital methods of payment and would prefer to keep cash. Many people have no bank account or credit card. They find budgeting far easier with notes and coins—after all, with cash, you cannot spend more than you have in your purse or wallet.

Many of my constituents are going back to those days. I can remember my mother having a little pocket for each bill—that is the way not to get into an overdraft. It has always been thus for people on lower incomes. Even with covid-19, people in deprived areas continue to rely on cash more than those in wealthier areas. LINK research shows a clear connection between deprivation and cash usage. Cash usage has dropped 70% year on year in the wealthiest areas, but only 35% in more deprived areas. That is the case in my constituency. Many people either choose to or have no option but to use cash. It is becoming harder and harder to pay using cash—in fact, we may well be at a tipping point, where the cash services once gone will not come back. Tipping point is a good way of putting it; I have difficulty in paying tips now. I do not really trust putting a tip on to my card. I would rather give the person giving the service the cash, and that is getting more and more difficult.

ATMs are being shut down throughout the country. In some cases, it is a response to falling demand, but once they have gone, it is much more expensive to restore them. It will be harder to get shops to accept cash again after they have insisted on contactless payments and cards for the best part of a year. Cash has been portrayed as somehow dirty and able to pass on the virus. That has not helped.

Research conducted for Money Mail suggests that half of all retailers plan to go cashless or have already done so due to the virus. I do not want to be in a situation where we find that because people choose to or have to use cash, their choice of where to shop is extremely limited. They might be taken advantage of in that situation.

LINK suggests that a cashless society presents a serious problem for 2 million people who still rely solely on cash and Natalie Ceeney, who chaired the access to cash review, says that as many as 8 million people would struggle to cope in a cashless society. These people need cash and they need confidence that the shops they use will accept cash for the goods they want to buy.

We must look at innovative and flexible ways of ensuring people have access to cash—for example, cashback without purchase, where people can go into local shops without buying anything. I welcome the extension of cashback, but it has to be part of a strategy. Things are happening piecemeal at the moment. Bank branches are shutting, ATMs are closing, and increasing numbers of shops are going cashless. We may need to look at making it mandatory for shops to have to accept cash, particularly those providing essentials such as food, medicine and so on. Do we need to look at a universal service obligation, so that banks are required to ensure cash access across the whole country, as happens in Sweden?

We also need to look at deposits. Post offices are almost seen as the silver bullet, but the postmaster in my constituency, who was quite elderly, had to self-isolate, and the post office has now been shut for nine months. People have no access to their cash now in that area. Three post offices in my constituency have also closed, with nobody able to take them over. These are in small pockets of community where to get cash is a journey.

There has been a 23% increase in the number of pay-to-use ATMs in the most deprived areas and that statistic worries me more than any other. If people have to pay to take out their cash, the £1.50 they pay to access their cash can be the difference between topping up their meter and having heat, and not being able to. Perhaps we should be looking at reforming the interchange fees to provide a bigger subsidy for provision in certain areas. It would be good to hear the Minister’s views on that.

I agree that vested interests should not accelerate the decline of cash. There is a case for reducing the number of ATMs in the face of decreasing use, but not the distribution and geographical reach. We need to maintain the footprint as we move forward, and we have to move forward. We need a Bill that deals with the issues and we need it very soon. We also need co-ordination of all the interested parties so that we can have a joined-up approach. Covid-19 has pushed an already fragile cash system to the brink of collapse. Unless the Government act now, we will sleepwalk into a cashless society and millions will be left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Member very much. I do not know whether the Department has had the opportunity to talk to the Association of Convenience Stores specifically, but I do know that the issue is very much on the agenda—it is certainly on the agenda of the Economic Secretary. It is important to realise, and to remind everyone, that the call for evidence on access to cash only closed last week. The timeliness of this debate rams home that point, and rightly so, but it is merely a week. It says more than I could for the high esteem in which colleagues across the House must hold the Government, if they think we can make a decision without having published a response and having only closed the call for evidence last week.

Nevertheless, the call for evidence is an important aspect. It set out the Government’s view that cash has the potential to continue to play an important role—and cashback within the cash infrastructure—and also asked for views on how that can be achieved. We will publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence and set out steps alongside that in due course. As colleagues will know, the call for evidence asked for views on key considerations associated with cash access, including deposit and withdrawal facilities, cash acceptance and regulatory oversight of the system.

The call for evidence also set out the Government’s views on the aims of legislation: that it should be proportionate, flexible, cost-effective, efficient and sustainable. The Government’s view, and we should be perfectly clear about this, is that legislation will need to ensure that business and people can have access to cash withdrawal and depositing facilities within a reasonable travel distance, as is needed in their day to day lives. I remind colleagues of that central point.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I accept that the purpose is to have reasonable access to cash within a travelling distance. Is that to free cash machines, because that is a key point?

Online Scams

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of protecting people from online scams.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We all know that access to the internet, whether for shopping, work or leisure, has absolutely been a boon for millions of people, but it has brought its own problems, not least in providing greater opportunities for fraudsters and scammers in an area where there is too little protection or redress for consumers who have been cheated out of their money.

Scams and fraud are the most prevalent types of crime in the UK. According to Action Fraud, 85% of that is what it describes as cyber-enabled—for technophobes like me, that means committed on the internet. The figure of 85% is for the year up to June 2020; it is bound to have grown since then because of the constraints imposed by covid-19, which have encouraged people to spend a lot more time online. The more time they spend online accessing websites and social media platforms, the more susceptible they are to becoming the victim of a scam. That is not because they are stupid or even naive, but because they underestimate how difficult it is to spot the online fakery and fraud and they often overestimate the vetting process undertaken by the established online marketplaces. The frauds are ever more sophisticated. The Association of British Insurers briefing says that even their staff struggle to spot the sites that are fake. If the staff of insurance companies themselves struggle, what hope is there for us as customers?

There are many money scams: investment scams, banking scams, insurance scams, pension scams, conveyancing scams, purchase scams, often involving non-existent products—the Cats Protection League has told me that non-existent cats are being sold online—romance scams, involving fake partners, and even scams targeting those seeking debt help. They all have one thing in common: they dupe people out of money, and it is often big money. Action Fraud shows that the value of losses from reported incidents—many people keep quiet about incidents because they feel stupid, but they are not—is £2.3 billion. Individual amounts are absolutely eye-watering: tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds—someone’s whole life savings gone or the proceeds of a house sale gone.

There are lots of ways in which scammers operate; they use different tricks. These include fake websites or adverts, particularly involving established brands; they sometimes feature fake celebrity endorsements. Fake reviews are a big problem on many of the biggest websites. Which? has consistently shown that. The consumer body has had evidence of fake and suspicious review activity on eBay, Facebook and Tripadvisor. And new research suggests that Amazon is struggling to spot and prevent sellers from using unscrupulous tactics. There is blatant evidence of sellers using free gifts and vouchers to incentivise shoppers to write positive reviews. Many are done in a suspiciously short time, with a suspiciously high number of review images. There was a more than 30% rise in the proportion of suspicious reviews on Amazon between March and August, following the first coronavirus lockdown. Black Friday is coming shortly, and this is particularly worrying for that.

That is important because everyone takes notice of online reviews. I look at the reviews to decide when I buy something. The Competition and Markets Authority estimates that consumer transactions worth £23 billion a year are influenced by online reviews. Many people think, “Well, they’re a good guide—they must be; this has a five-star review.” Amazon says it has clear policies that prohibit sellers from engaging in such activity, but Which? is concerned that the approach is not effective and that firmer action is needed to address the problems. I agree and I hope the Minister will, too.

The losses that people suffer from responding to fake or impersonator adverts are substantial. A Which? investigation highlighted one visitor who lost almost £100,000 after they clicked on an online investment featuring fake celebrity endorsement from Martin Lewis and Deborah Meaden. Another lost £160,000 by clicking on an Aviva ad. Criminals are now using social engineering and grooming techniques that target vulnerable consumers. Sometimes it is a follow-on from an initial contact made from accessing fake sites’ online adverts. The Association of British Insurers has told us about an increasing number of fake websites operating the authorised push payment scams. Some of its members are dealing with 32 fake websites at the same time. An APP scam occurs when somebody is tricked into authorising a transfer of money to an account that they think is a legitimate payee, but is in fact controlled by a scammer. They can be made online, on the phone or in person, and most take place instantly.

UK Finance said that £208 million was lost to APP scams in the first half of 2020. Most fraud took place on personal accounts with £164 million lost, and the non-personal and business loss was £44 million. Some victims have lost their entire life savings. They are often groomed into handing money over by staff at fake call centres. They do not do it instantly; they build a relationship with people now and often use the names of genuine financial services staff.

There have been advances. The contingent reimbursement model code is designed to give people the confidence that if they act appropriately they will be reimbursed, but, even between May 2019 and September 2020, only 40% to 45% of losses were repaid by the victim’s bank or repatriated—the money was recovered and credited—so people are still being left out of pocket. I have to give credit to the TSB, which is going further than the code, and it believes that it has not had more fraudulent claims because it is going further. Fraud is still taking place. Serious amounts of money are being lost. What solutions does the Minister propose for the APP scams?

I have mentioned grooming, and that word is appropriate here. We used to hear about paedophiles grooming. It is about building up trust over time, and that is what happens in many cases of scams.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to speak on this timely subject. In the past few weeks in my constituency, I have had two cases of online scams brought to me. One gentleman thought he had purchased a car. He paid £9,000 and it was not there when he went to collect it. It was a Northern Ireland to Scotland transaction. Another gentleman has lost £260,000 in three separate investments in what he thought was a legitimate investment site. More needs to be done. We need to educate people and hold the platforms to account. We also need to ensure that the police have the legislative powers to deal with such cases, because in both of those instances, the police would not even investigate them. Through the hon. Lady today, I ask the Minister to really take this matter in hand and start to give the police the legislative powers to tackle the problem.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. We find that people build up a relationship with their scammers. Trust is key for push payments, as we have heard. I also want to talk quickly about romance scams, in which lonely victims are lured into pretend relationships over many months. They are tempted with fake photographs and back stories, and the scam is revealed only after thousands of pounds have been handed over, probably for non-existent medical treatment for a relation. I have a constituent who handed over thousands of pounds of Amazon vouchers to a fake USA army major. The photograph on his Facebook page had been used more than 50 times with different names to scam people. Surely Facebook should have an algorithm that spots that type of suspicious activity.

It is all too easy to say that people need to be more careful. Yes, they do need to be careful, but scams are ever more sophisticated, and even the most experienced people cannot always spot them. Scammers prey on vulnerable and lonely people, and under covid-19 people are becoming more isolated. They are possibly not able to discuss it with their friends and neighbours and say, “Is this real? Is it not?”.

What is more, people think at the outset that they are protected from this double-dealing. After all, they assume that adverts placed on a well-known platform are legitimate and that the product has been vetted or checked. That is the sort of protection that people are used to on the high street, but online platforms do not have a legal obligation to protect users against scams on their site. Surely that is wrong, given that they are taking revenue from the sellers. Why should the consumer have to shoulder the burden if things go wrong? Does the Minister agree that the burden of responsibly should be on the platforms and sites, which have the data and tools, and not on the consumer, who is at a clear disadvantage in this business?

The voluntary initiatives are not working; they are not sufficient to tackle the online scams. Only 30% of Facebook users are aware of the social media site’s scam advert reporting tool, and only 10% of people have used it. That is really not good enough. I am pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority is producing literature warning customers of possible online scams, but is it not ironic that the regulator is paying for an advert on Google, which is taking similar revenue for the fake adverts on its site? It is a bit of a double-whammy for the search engine—it is getting it twice.

I am obviously not against measures to raise public awareness of scams, and some very good work is being done. The Pension Wise guidance has had a real impact on people’s awareness of pension scams. Many organisations, including regulators, charities and advice agencies, have helpful advice about how to avoid scams, but scammers are extremely agile and good at what they do, and it is not enough to prevent serious fraud.

We need a strong regulatory framework. Online platforms should be given the responsibility for preventing scam content from appearing on their sites and more responsibility for removing it when it is reported. That would perhaps bring them a bit more into line with consumers’ expectations.

The online harms Bill seems the perfect opportunity to deliver that. By including financial harms, there is a greater responsibility on the search engines and social media platforms to identify and remove harmful content. I understand why the White Paper is limited in scope. Platforms and sites will be required to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent user-generated child sexual exploitation and abuse, and terrorist content. However, the tools that the scammers use to target their victims—social engineering and grooming—are similar to those used by criminals in financial fraud. The same requirement should be extended to cover the scam content defrauding people of their money and causing immense mental anguish and harm, let alone financial anguish.

There is also a strong case for ensuring that the Bill covers both paid-for advertising and user-generated content, because the scammers use both. As Which? points out, if we do not tackle the user-generated scam content, scammers will adapt. They will use that loophole and move from posting scam ads to organic user-generated scam content. There is support for that approach from Which?, UK Finance and the FCA.

I hope the Minister will commit to widening the scope of the online harms Bill. If he will not, will he introduce proposals for further legislative action to protect people from online scams effectively? The Government have said that their objective is for the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online. We have a chance now to make that a reality.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd? I thank the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for securing a debate on this important topic. I pay tribute to her general competence and knowledge on consumer issues. I have engaged with her a number of times as a Minister, and I always appreciate the constructive way she approaches this topic. She has demonstrated again this afternoon her comprehensive awareness of the complexity of this subject, and how it impacts so many of our constituents.

I know very well how this issue matters to many colleagues across the House, because it has impacted so many across our constituencies. As a constituency MP, I have encountered the financial and mental impact, and the anguish it causes individuals in my surgery.

I assure Members that the Government are committed to tackling this complex problem. I will set out the context. There have been rapid changes to modern payments, which bring great benefits and opportunities to many, but with new opportunities come new risks, such as the type of scams the hon. Lady set out. More people and businesses are buying and selling online. People are using a range of innovative ways to make payments via card, mobile and electronic wallets. In 2019, over two-thirds of UK adults used online banking, half used mobile banking, and for the first time cards accounted for more than half of UK payments. Those new technologies and products have helped to make payments faster and cheaper, and provided exciting opportunities for UK businesses and consumers.

Alongside those innovations, as the hon. Lady rightly said, criminals are becoming increasingly devious and sophisticated, and are ruthlessly exploiting these new technologies and the digitisation of commerce to perpetrate scams. The truth is that there is no silver bullet. I wish there was. Success in the matter depends on quite sophisticated collaboration between Government, the regulators, banks and online platforms, and between customers and the services they use. The Government are committed to playing their part to facilitate that better collaboration.

Turning to the current situation and what is already being done, authorised push payment scams—APP scams—have become a major problem in recent years. Fraudsters use sophisticated techniques to trick people, often, as the hon. Lady said, by forming phony relationships and defrauding people into authorising payments to criminal-controlled accounts. According to UK Finance, £456 million was lost to these scams in 2019, up from £354 million the year before.

Last week, I met with the managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator and raised concerns like those we have heard today. We agreed that more needs to be done to ensure victims are protected. To that end, the Payment Systems Regulator and industry are working together to improve the level of protection provided to consumers through the existing voluntary code, known as the contingent reimbursement model code, which the hon. Lady referenced.

Banks that have signed up to that code have agreed to reimburse victims of APP scams, so long as they took a reasonable level of care when making the relevant payment. As the hon. Lady will know, the code has been operating since May 2019, and its effectiveness is currently being reviewed by the lending standards board, the body responsible for governing it. I look forward to the conclusions of that review. The hon. Lady cited statistics, which I recognise require thorough examination.

When it comes to fraud, prevention is just as important as any cure. That is why the authorities are taking steps to ensure that fewer people fall foul of the scams in the first place, notwithstanding the sophisticated nature of the interactions that lead to them. At the request of the Payment Systems Regulator, the six biggest UK banking groups have introduced a process known as confirmation of payee. Under that process, the bank account and sort code numbers are checked against account names, to ensure that payments are going to the intended recipients. It is early days, but we are confident that this innovation is an important step forward in preventing scams from succeeding in the first place.

The challenge is that for a number of those measures—we are probably all familiar with them from doing payments ourselves—it comes down to where culpability lies. The hon. Lady made observations about the sophisticated relationship and the conditioning that has sometimes taken place. That is what we are dealing with and what we have to get to grips with.

The financial services sector is just one part of the equation in combatting fraud. Other industries, including online platforms, which have been mentioned, have a role to play. The National Cyber Security Centre has been leading the way in ensuring that online scams are taken down as quickly as possible, and this year it launched a new suspicious email reporting service, making it easier for the public to highlight suspicious emails and websites. The service has already led to more than 3.6 million reports and more than 18,000 scams being removed, but I recognise that more needs to be done.

The Financial Conduct Authority’s ScamSmart website, which is not limited to online scams, also aims to help consumers protect themselves against investment scams. It does that by allowing users to search a warning list to check an investment opportunity and report scams or unauthorised firms. Anybody who falls victim to such scams should contact Action Fraud UK to help us catch the criminals. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned in her contribution, this is a universal problem, and I recognise her anxiety about the sufficiency of the measures. As I say, I am happy to continue the discussion about what more can be done.

The private sector has its own responsibility to protect customers online. We have been working with online platforms and industry to take down fraudulent materials and websites. The specialist Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit is a great example of that partnership at work: it is a proactive police unit and involves UK Finance, the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office. It continues to develop new partnerships with social media companies to take down accounts being used for various fraudulent ends and to stop the recruitment of people as money mules.

As well as working to prevent scams, we need to look after those who fall victim to them. We need to consider the emotional, as well as financial, harm that victims experience. That is why we are working with national and local policing, including police and crime commissioners, to support the victims of these terrible crimes. Even where it is not possible to investigate a case further, the Action Fraud economic crime victim care unit supports victims by helping them to recover and better protect themselves in future. What about the next steps? A lot of good work is being done, but we cannot rest on our laurels. This is a sophisticated problem: just as the wider banking, online and commercial landscapes continue to evolve, so the methods used by criminals to defraud customers evolve. In June 2019, the Treasury announced a review of the payments landscape, and we recently held a call for evidence as the first stage. That call for evidence reflected on the success of the Faster Payments Service as a 24/7 real-time payments system, but it also noted that Faster Payments currently lacks scheme rules to resolve disputes and assign liability when payments go wrong, including—crucially—in the case of APP scams. The Government have concluded that a set of comprehensive rules in the Faster Payments Service could make a real difference to tackling that problem. We have sought views on the issue and will outline our next steps in due course.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Will the Minister also look into the fact that many criminals, particularly in romance-type frauds, have moved on to asking for Amazon vouchers? What can be done in cases such as that of my constituent, who bought thousands of pounds-worth of Amazon vouchers and sent them abroad?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Although I have not personally experienced that, through either my constituency or ministerial work, she makes a sensible point about the evolving nature of those frauds. In that particular example, it would be reasonable to expect the platform to observe the obvious unusual nature of such a purchase. This is not territory with which I am directly familiar, but I will take it back to my colleagues in Government, including at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

More of us are transacting online than ever before, opting for the speed and convenience of new forms of banking and payments, but sadly fraudsters are taking advantage and developing ever more sophisticated ways of scamming people. We cannot row back on digital innovation and, given the immense benefits, nor should we, but it is crucial that people have confidence in how they transact online.

Additional Covid-19 Restrictions: Fair Economic Support

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friends, I am deeply disappointed and angry with the Government’s approach to the negotiations, if indeed they can be called that. Negotiations, I believe, involve listening with time allocated so that all can make their views heard, but this has not been the case with the calls I have been on or the reports I have heard from local leaders. Putting an amount of money on the table and saying “This is what you’re going to get” is not negotiating. What did Ministers expect—that Manchester would say, “Oh, we don’t want quite that much, thank you very much”?

Now we are going to be placed in tier 3, with the Government wanting to divide and rule and to talk to local leaders individually, not through the democratically elected Mayor of Manchester. It is probably worth reminding Conservative Members that it was a Conservative Government who insisted on a Greater Manchester Mayor and that Andy Burnham was overwhelmingly elected to do that role. However, when he does the job he was elected to do—stands up for the residents of Greater Manchester and refuses to allow them to be pushed into poverty—this Government brief against him and want to deal with individual leaders. This divisive strategy should not be allowed to work.

It is far too easy to call the money business support, as if it is given to faceless entities, but it is not. It is for families—the supply chain of people and families behind those businesses—and it is also for community hubs in many cases. In my constituency, sports clubs such as Highfield cricket club and the Ashton Bears are relying on bar sales to continue to provide sporting facilities. Without support, some of these clubs may no longer survive. Equally, of the more than 200 pubs in Wigan, many are wet pubs. They are not bistros and eateries serving food, but they have been an important part of the community for many years. The people who run them are worried about how they will survive another lockdown with no end in sight.

For all the people affected, the furlough payments will change from 80% to 67%. Wigan is a low-wage economy and that is a crushing blow for many people, with Christmas just around the corner. Universal credit is no replacement because of its waiting period and because most families with an average income of £20,000 would see a substantial drop in their household income.

Recovery action for debts, including bailiffs’ actions, restarted at the end of August. Families are faced with having 67% of their income—two thirds—but unfortunately, during winter, bills do not drop by a third; in fact, heating bills go up in that time. Debt charities are already experiencing a spike in calls about council tax repayment and repossessions, and they expect a rise of more than 60% in the current demand. As we move into tier 3, there needs to be a renewed package of protection for people whose income will be hit. I commend the package suggested by Citizens Advice.

I have repeatedly asked for projections of how the measures in each tier would affect the virus and what the economic impact would be. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has given me that and has suggested other ways. He has calculated how it would affect businesses and the people behind them, and how much money they would need, and nowhere have I seen those figures disproved.

Divide and rule cannot be the way forward. To control the virus and support businesses and families, I urge the Minister not to go down the damaging route of setting north against south, region against region, and local authority against local authority.