Nuisance Phone Calls

Debate between Alun Cairns and Jackie Doyle-Price

Thursday 28th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Havard. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for debate and those Members who supported me in seeking parliamentary time, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who turned up to make representations before the Committee. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who has raised this issue in the past, as well as many other colleagues.

I have been overwhelmed by the response I have received since applying for this debate. I am sure that more Members would have been present today were it not for the Eastleigh by-election, which is a subject that I might briefly return to later. More than 100 MPs responded positively to my suggestion of a debate on the subject and there has been significant interest from the national and regional newspapers and network and regional television outlets, which clearly shows that nuisance calls are a problem that needs to be resolved. The matter might sound straightforward, but it is complex and ever-changing. I referred briefly to Eastleigh, and we all need to confess, both as individuals and as political parties, to the role that we play in generating even more nuisance phone calls.

Let me explain the background to my interest in this subject. Although I have a specific interest in ICT legislation, I did not appreciate the significance of the issue until a constituent explained his predicament. A retired individual from Cowbridge in my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan, who is regularly at home during the day, highlighted the fact that he could receive more than a dozen calls from sales and marketing companies during working hours and throughout the evening.

I initially assumed that the Telephone Preference Service would resolve the matter, but after researching the issue, I started to appreciate its complexity. Anyone who wishes to stop unsolicited calls can register with the Telephone Preference Service, which makes it against the law to call consumers who are registered on the list unless they have given prior consent to do so.

Ofcom has the responsibility for maintaining the Telephone Preference Service, which is administered under licence by the Direct Marketing Association. The Information Commissioner has the responsibility to follow up consumer complaints and take action against those companies that are breaking the law. That sounds pretty straightforward, providing that each party lives up to its obligations. However, the situation is not so straightforward. To complain about an unsolicited call, we need the caller’s telephone number. Caller display or dialling 1471 should enable a complaint to be pursued. The privacy and electronic communication regulations require the caller to identify themselves when asked, but it appears that most withhold their number, making it almost impossible to identify them unless the receiver is prepared to endure the marketing pitch, which is undesirable to many. In many circumstances, the caller will simply hang up when the receiver asks for their identity at the outset.

The situation does not stop there. Many calls are silent or abandoned, and that is because call centres use automated diallers. That technology dials more numbers than there are agents available, to maximise the time they spend speaking to consumers. It is only when the consumer answers the phone that an agent will be connected. If an agent is not available there are two options: the automated system can leave a message, which is considered to be an abandoned call, or it can drop the call without a message, which is considered to be a silent call. Both are irritating, but a silent call can be intimidating or even frightening to some constituents. That situation is compounded when the number is withheld, preventing a complaint from being made.

There are two issues here. First, many call centres do not adhere to the rules laid down by the Telephone Preference Service or the privacy and electronic communication regulations. Secondly, withheld numbers prevent a consumer from complaining. Even if a company is committed to following the PEC rules, loopholes remain. If someone is registered with the TPS, it remains legal to call them to conduct a survey as an excuse. Another way of getting around the rules is to use the “permission to call” loophole, which is where someone who may have bought a product in the past has not ticked the box to exclude their data from being passed on to “carefully selected partners”. The reality is that their data have been sold on to another company that might have some tenuous relationship with the original company. It does not even stop there.

There is also a third dimension: calls from overseas. Calls being made on behalf of UK companies should also adhere to the privacy and electronic communication regulations. There is evidence that they do not, but there is a further problem when they are not acting on behalf of UK companies.

It is little wonder that I received such a response to this debate given the number of complaints. Ofcom shows that 47% of adults experienced the silent call treatment during the last six months of 2012, which is up by a quarter on the year before. In July 2012, there were some 10,000 complaints; six months earlier the number was a third of that, which shows that the problem is increasing at a remarkable rate. A survey by Which? magazine found that 76% of respondents were still getting lots of nuisance calls despite being registered with TPS. It is safe to make the assumption that there would be even more complaints if the callers could identify the number from which they were called.

The regulatory responsibility is split and not straightforward. The Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for enforcing companies to comply with the rules, and Ofcom has powers to deal with the silent or abandoned calls. Let me give credit to the Information Commissioner and to Ofcom. Both have made some efforts to challenge and fine those responsible for such calls. I have to stress that they were extremely slow to respond, but I welcome their late efforts none the less.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the argument. There are regulators responsible for policing such activity, but as with any regulatory breach, regulators have to be fleet of foot in dealing with transgressions, or companies will just carry on with them. Would my hon. Friend like to see a much more aggressive approach on behalf of the regulators, so that action is taken sooner?

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend shows great interest in these issues and makes an extremely valuable point. I have already mentioned that Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office have been slow to respond to the problem, and as my hon. Friend highlights, the position is ever changing. Not only are telephone numbers changing but so too is technology. Although I welcome Ofcom’s five-point plan, which it would probably cite in response to the criticism coming from the Government Benches, it is not a game changer. The plan is helpful and welcome, but it will not make a significant difference to most people, particularly as it is an ever-changing situation.

I have serious concerns about the regulatory responsibility being split between two bodies. It causes confusion to the consumer and adds nothing to the prevention or resolution of the problem. Having one body—probably Ofcom—would be much more efficient. The issue of withheld numbers, however, is central. Technology improvements allowed caller ID to be introduced in 1994, and at that time a consensus developed that callers should be able to withhold numbers if they wished. Key reasons related to the need to protect people receiving calls from charitable groups, such as those supporting victims of domestic violence, and to the need for the police to contact someone without disclosing their identity. At the time, there was no major issue with nuisance calls, and it is fair to say that contact centres have now abused the protection that was intended for the greater good.

Nuisance calls could be compared to someone knocking at the door wearing a mask or a balaclava. Would we answer the door to such an unknown caller? Of course we would not. Why, then, do we allow the same thing to happen over the telephone? Ironically, door-to-door salesmen from some of the companies Ofcom has criticised must show identity cards. In recent years, some of those companies have used them as a marketing ploy to demonstrate how responsible they are. Salesmen are therefore showing ID cards when they call at the door, but nothing similar happens when they use the telephone.

Many people have been forced to ask their telephone operators to block all withheld numbers—for a fee, of course. That can leave individuals in a vulnerable position. GP practices, police stations or other essential service providers do not always display their number—possibly with good reason, possibly not—so constituents may refuse to answer the telephone.

Some innovations and new telephones can overcome part of the problem, but there needs to be a shift in policy to protect the consumer. One option is that organisations that wanted to withhold numbers would need to show they had good reason for doing so and to get Ofcom’s agreement. That, of course, should not apply to domestic users. We need to recognise that that will not always deal with certain situations, given technological developments and the ever-changing situation. Voice over internet protocol and the international calls that I mentioned are particularly problematic.

I am not a fan of legislation for the sake of legislation, so I ask UK firms to play their part voluntarily. They should not only adhere strictly to the regulations, but go further and introduce higher standards, possibly in the form of a code of conduct. It would be a good start, for example, if they agreed to stop using withheld numbers, rather than being forced to do so through legislation. Using withheld numbers is in their interests, not the consumer’s interests, so if they really want to react to consumer demands, that would be a good start.

Telephone network operators also have a part to play. They could establish a system that made it possible to identify callers using withheld numbers. That would allow complaints to be made to Ofcom or the Information Commissioner. Legislation may well prevent the caller’s number from being given to the receiver, but the network operator will often know what the number is. A simple system could be introduced to allow a consumer to make a direct complaint to Ofcom, with the telephone operator advising Ofcom what the number is. Those innovative, straightforward proposals would resolve many of the problems.

As I said, the situation is extremely complicated. I have not even got on to texting or calls to mobiles. However, my comments demonstrate the problem, which has increased partly as a result of payment protection insurance and partly as a result of the claims that have been made for many other things. Given that the data that have been published show a trebling of nuisance phone calls in one month alone last year, we can assume the figure is even higher, and it would be much higher still if the receiver of the call could complain because they had the telephone number. I am grateful for Members’ support.