Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

I cannot talk about areas outside my responsibility, but I can address the new clause. I assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that I am engaging closely with the FCA and have already achieved an acceleration of its timetable for engagement. It is important that his constituents’ concerns, which he raised previously, are addressed, and I expect the FCA to take steps in that direction urgently.

I was delighted to hear from Macmillan that it has a tremendous working relationship with the FCA. The two organisations are engaged in dialogue, and last year they worked closely on the call for input on the challenges firms face in providing travel insurance for consumers who have had cancer. The FCA will be publishing a feedback statement and its next steps in due course. Dialogue is taking place, and there is responsiveness. For those reasons, it is not appropriate to include these regulatory principles in the Bill, so I request that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington withdraw the amendment.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. I seek your guidance. I will be speaking to Opposition new clause 7, but I note that Government amendments 3 and 4 are unobjectionable, so I may go straight on to making my remarks about new clause 7.

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman may, of course, speak to as many of the amendments within the group as he chooses, but he must stick to the group.

[Jack Dromey]

I will not depart from your ruling that it is not appropriate to debate terror insurance today. All I will say is that we would like to engage with the Government during the Bill’s next stages, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has identified a significant problem for a number of those who paid a heavy price as a consequence of the terrorist attacks. We hope that the Government are prepared to engage at the next stages accordingly.

As I said, Government amendments 3 and 4 are unobjectionable, but I want to make some preliminary comments about what the Minister said. First, I note that dialogue has taken place with the FCA. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West is right to say that the FCA is sometimes captured by big interests in the industry, and that sometimes it has been known to be not exactly the quickest organisation to arrive at a conclusion.

I will say a bit more about why the new clause matters in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is absolutely right to say that it is about protecting the vulnerable, in particular at a time of crisis in their lives. It is welcome that the Minister has met with Macmillan—an admirable organisation. Again, I will come on to say something about its representations.

My final point about what the Minister said is about the substance of what should eventually be done. This might be a matter that ends up before the courts. If we ultimately have a duty of care in legislation and providers do not abide by it, they will end up in court. This is about sending an unmistakable message.

The purpose of new clause 7 is to introduce a duty of care requiring claims management services to act with the customers’ best interests in mind, not least customers who find themselves in a vulnerable situation. Due to the current scope of the Bill, the clause relates just to claims management services, but we hope that the Government introduce their own amendment to introduce a duty of care for all financial services firms. As hon. Members will be aware, calls for the introduction of a duty of care received a great deal of support from across the House on Second Reading, and a similar amendment in the other place likewise received strong cross-party support. As the Bill recognises, ensuring that people have access to the right help and advice as soon as possible is essential to stopping financial problems escalating. For people who are ill or considered vulnerable in other ways, that becomes ever more important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting, but is this really a matter for Government? Is it not for the banks to address—to ensure that their staff are trained and sympathetic to people with a terminal diagnosis? It is not something that we can legislate for, but the banks can do something about it.

[Jack Dromey]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, but I could not disagree more. This is about sending an unmistakable message about a duty of care, which in those circumstances there is a legal obligation to deliver. It also means that banks must train their staff accordingly. A duty of care cannot be just a resolution passed by this House; it must be enacted at the next stages by all providers.

[Mrs Latham]

It is for the banks to train their staff. We cannot train staff from different institutions. We can send a message, but banks must train their own staff to ensure that they act appropriately with people who have a terminal diagnosis.

[Jack Dromey]

We in this House impose obligations in the public interest that must be delivered. We need sensitivity for those going through the trauma of cancer, and having a duty of care sends an unmistakable message to the board of an organisation that that duty of care must be delivered, and it must be enacted with appropriate training by members of staff.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very patient in giving way, but to continue the thread started by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), I spent many years working as a cashier on the frontline in banks and building societies, in between going to university—it was about five years in total. The staff were absolutely equipped to deal with such matters—indeed, they had to be, not least when probate matters were being dealt with. Those staff had to be incredibly sensitive, and I think the hon. Gentleman is rather getting the industry wrong, as far as the sensitivity of those staff is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

In that case, the hon. Gentleman is saying that Macmillan is getting it wrong. The Minister has engaged with Macmillan with an open mind—I warmly welcome that—and has heard the concerns direct, based on firm evidence, that at the moment too many people suffering from cancer are not treated with the respect and sensitivity they deserve.

[Huw Merriman]

I have another example from a cancer perspective, which I will not go into; I work very closely with Macmillan on a personal basis, but that is probably better left to one side. What I will say is that when this House is prescriptive in legislation, rather than letting organisations deal with issues in the manner that they may be best equipped to do, it does not always work out as intended.

[Jack Dromey]

With the greatest respect, the Government are prescriptive the whole time, and I think this is an area ripe for prescription. I stress again that we need to send an unmistakable message that regulated providers have certain obligations that fall upon them. There are already obligations imposed under law, for example on financial probity. We should add to those a duty of care to customers, particularly when they are suffering from or dying from cancer. I should have thought that was entirely unobjectionable. Macmillan is absolutely right and the Minister has been right to respond to its representations. I will come in a moment to what I hope will happen at the next stages.

To return to my point, staff did not have knowledge about the products and the help available to people affected by cancer. If we are to tackle such problems, the provision of appropriate support, flexibility in policies and procedures, and ensuring that staff are appropriately trained to support vulnerable customers need to be at the heart of banking culture.

One of the things that struck me most in the findings was that only one in 10 people with cancer had told their bank about their diagnosis in the first place. Many people with cancer still do not think their bank will be able to help them, while others worry that telling the bank will have negative consequences, so they are reluctant to disclose their diagnosis. Regardless of whether that negative perception is justified on all occasions, it represents a serious barrier to people seeking help early and tells us that the existing rules are not adequate. Despite some provisions in the area, the banking sector is still a long way off the point where meeting the needs of vulnerable customers is at the heart of corporate culture, hence the clear evidence from Macmillan.

The financial services consumer panel has noted that the regulatory principle of treating customers fairly does not adequately ensure that firms exercise appropriate levels of care towards their customers. It is interesting that the FCA’s own panel concluded that. If banks and building societies had a legal duty of care towards their customers, it would give people with cancer confidence to disclose their diagnosis, knowing that they could trust their bank to act in their best interests.

Consumers are also demanding action in this area. More than 20,000 people have signed an open letter from Macmillan Nurse Miranda, calling for a duty of care to be introduced. I urge the Government to look at the recommendation made by the House of Lords Financial Exclusion Committee on a duty of care, which has been strongly evidenced by Macmillan Cancer Support. The Committee concluded that, as first recommended by the financial services consumer panel, the Government should amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

“to introduce a requirement for the FCA to make rules setting out a reasonable duty of care for financial services providers to exercise towards their customers.”

I appreciate that any change as significant as this must be subject to proper consideration and consultation, as the Minister said. It is therefore welcome that the FCA has recognised that and is committed to publishing a discussion paper on the issue. It is welcome that the Minister has pressed the FCA to bring that forward, and I will come on to timescale in a moment. However, the Government and the FCA have said that this must wait until after the withdrawal from the EU becomes clear. I think that now, as the Minister said earlier, that may no longer be the case, not least because who knows when we will withdraw from the European Union—

[John Glen]

We are very clear on that.

[Jack Dromey]

There is a certain lack of clarity on the part of the Government about that end. Given that the introduction of a duty of care would still require legislation, when can we expect it to be introduced if we do not use the opportunity presented by the Bill? Will the Minister clearly set out his view as to the likely timescale for the introduction of a duty of care, from the initial consultation process through to the point at which consumers begin to benefit from any change? Given the evidence that has been presented about the need for further support for vulnerable customers, is a prolonged delay acceptable? I urge the Minister to take note of the breadth of support for this issue and the strong evidence presented on the need for action. I suggest that the Government reflect on that further and bring forward suitable proposals on Report.

My final point is that I sense a joint determination to act, and that is welcome. We should act, but what does that mean in terms of both substance and timescale? We will not press the new clause to a vote but I invite the Minister to undertake that he will come back on Report to set out with some clarity the likely timescale and substance of what the Government might eventually do.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. There is broad agreement on how serious the issue is, but I would characterise the Government’s approach as wanting not to send a message but to secure an outcome. They want to secure an outcome when they understand exactly what the impact of the changes might be.

As I said in some of my earlier remarks, there is huge uncertainty about how a potential duty of care would impact on firms and consumers. That is why I am very pleased with the accelerated timetable. I acknowledge that there is no absolute clarity about what will flow from that, but that is because we do not know what the outcome of the discussion will be. However, I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I acknowledge his sensitivity to what Macmillan has said—it is unacceptable that 11% of people who have cancer tell their financial service provider—but it is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said, that not all banks are doing a poor job. I heard from Macmillan about the wonderful work that Nationwide has done, and I think it is for other banks to reflect on what they need to do to change their behaviours.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I do not share his characterisation of the FCA’s willingness to engage on this. As I set out, the FCA is engaged in dialogue with Macmillan and has now accelerated the timetable for dealing with the subject. I will reflect on the comments made and see what can be said to give more assurance further on, but I am convinced that the dialogue with the FCA will lead to a proportionate outcome that takes full account of the impact. I therefore reiterate my hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

[Jack Dromey]

On the basis of what the Minister has said—that he will come back on Report—we will not be pressing new clause 7.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment made: 4, in clause 24, page 18, line 7, at end insert—

“( ) In section 137R (financial promotion rules)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and after that paragraph insert—

‘(aa) to engage in claims management activity, or’;

(b) in subsection (6), for ‘has’ substitute ‘and “engage in claims management activity” have’.”—(John Glen.)

The result of this amendment of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 would be that the FCA may make rules about the communication, or the approval of another person’s communications, by authorised persons of invitations or inducements to engage in claims management activity.

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

Regulation of claims management services: transitional provision

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Amendments 20 to 22 are technical amendments that extend the FCA’s data-gathering powers to Scotland. They amend schedule 5, which contains transitional provisions to extend the FCA’s information-gathering powers; to enable it to take preparatory steps, such as to consult on rules; and to enable it to adopt rules made by the current regulator. That ensures that the FCA can obtain information and documents from claims management companies operating or previously operating in Scotland, if the FCA considers that it needs the information or documentation in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.

The amendments will help ensure that Scottish consumers are adequately protected when the regulation for financial services claims management companies is transferred to the FCA. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it is right to ensure that the regulator is suitably prepared to regulate Scottish claims management companies, and will agree with the amendments.

[Jack Dromey]

It is a sensible move to give the FCA those extended powers. Therefore, we note the proposed amendments. Our colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, might wish to comment, but this seems to us a logical and sensible proposal.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

I agree.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendments made: 21, in schedule 5, page 41, line 23, leave out from “a” to end of line 24 and insert “person falling within paragraph 1B.”

This amendment and amendment 22 would enable the FCA to obtain reports from claims management companies operating in Scotland if the FCA considers that it needs the report in preparation for its role as the regulator of claims management companies.

Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 41, line 24, at end insert—

“1A A person falls within this paragraph if the person—

(a) is or at any time was authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or

(b) is, or at any time was, providing services in Scotland which the person would be, or would have been, prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.

1B A person falls within this paragraph if the person—

(a) is authorised under section 5(1)(a) of the Compensation Act 2006 (provision of regulated claims management services), or

(b) is providing services in Scotland which the person would be prohibited from providing in England and Wales by section 4(1) of the Compensation Act 2006 unless authorised under section 5(1)(a) of that Act.”—(John Glen.)

See the explanation for amendments 20 and 21.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25

Power of FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims management services

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[John Glen]

Clause 25 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to give the FCA the power to cap the amount that firms can charge customers for the claims management services it regulates. The clause also places a duty on the FCA to make rules restricting charges for claims for financial services or products. The Government believe that placing a duty on the FCA to cap the amount that firms can charge consumers for services related to financial services claims is the only satisfactory way of ensuring that consumers receive good value for money. This is especially true given that consumers can, for example, take complaints about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance to the financial ombudsman for free. In addition, the general fee-capping power provided by the clause gives the FCA the necessary flexibility to respond to future changes in the claims management sector.

[Jack Dromey]

I would like to make two points. First, the proposed changes are unobjectionable and we note them. Secondly, I will, however, be speaking to amendments 47 and 48 in respect of allowing consumers to keep 100% of their PPI compensation, but we will come to those in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

PPI claims and charges for claims management services: general

[John Glen]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, leave out “and 28” and insert

“to (PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA)”.

This amendment would apply the explanation of terms given in clause 26 to the new clause inserted by NC3.

[John Glen]

These amendments ensure that legal services regulators can continue to impose fee restrictions for PPI claims from the point at which the transfer of regulation of CMCs to the FCA takes place. This will be effective in the case of the Law Society of England and Wales until it implements its own rules on fee capping and, in the case of the General Council of the Bar and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, until 29 April 2020.

The interim fee cap will be set at 20% of the claim value, excluding VAT. It will apply to CMCs and legal services providers, and will be enforced by the relevant regulators from two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The interim fee cap will ensure fair and proportionate prices for consumers using claims management services for mis-sold PPI claims.

Government amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 3 ensure that the interim fee cap provisions introduced as a concessionary amendment in the House of Lords work together with the other Government amendments we are discussing today, and provide the legal services regulators with the power to restrict fees in relation to claim management services. The amendments will ensure that consumers are equally protected from excessive fees when using a legal services provider to make a claim for mis-sold PPI, and that there is continuity of coverage for the fee cap throughout the transfer of regulation. This is similar to the existing provisions in the Bill in relation to the FCA. I hope that all Members will agree that these are sensible and desirable amendments for the purposes of consumer protection.

[Jack Dromey]

Briefly, I have two related points. First, we agree that the legal services regulators should be given those powers. Secondly, and crucially, the objective is to protect consumers. I once again refer to amendments 47 and 48, which I will speak to shortly.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment made: 6, in clause 26, page 22, line 11, at end insert—

“, and

(c) so far as relevant for the purposes of section (PPI claims: interim restriction on charges imposed by legal practitioners after transfer of regulation to FCA), to be read as referring to any service which is a relevant claims management activity (within the meaning given by subsection (5) of that section).”—(John Glen.)

This amendment would define what references to “regulated services” in clause 26 mean when relevant for the purposes of the new clause inserted by NC3.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

PPI claims: interim restriction on charges before transfer of regulation to FCA

[Jack Dromey]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 27, page 22, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—

“(1) A regulated person—

(a) must not charge a claimant for regulated claims management services provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, unless those charges are made in accordance with section 26(4); and

(b) must not enter into an agreement that provides for the payment by a claimant, for regulated claims management services provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, of charges which would breach, or are capable of breaching, the prohibition in paragraph (a).

(2) All charges incurred by a regulated person in the course of providing regulated claims management services in connection with a claimant’s PPI claim must be paid by the person against whom the claimant’s successful PPI claim was made.

(3) A regulated person—

(a) must not charge a person for regulated claims management services provided in connection with a claimant’s PPI claim, an amount which exceeds the fee cap for the claim; and

(b) must not enter into an agreement that provides for the payment by a person, for regulated claims management services provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, of charges which would breach, or are capable of breaching, the prohibition in paragraph (a).

(4) A breach of subsection (1) is not actionable as a breach of statutory duty; but

(a) any payment made by a claimant in breach of subsection (1) is recoverable by the claimant; and

(b) any agreement entered into in breach of subsection (1)(b) is not enforceable to the extent it provides for a payment that breaches or is capable of breaching the prohibition in subsection (1)(a).

(4A) A breach of subsection (3) is not actionable as a breach of statutory duty; but

(a) any payment made by the person against whom the claimant’s successful PPI claim was made, in excess of the fee cap for a PPI claim is recoverable by the person; and

(b) any agreement entered into in breach of subsection (3)(b) is not enforceable to the extent it provides for a payment that breaches or is capable of breaching the prohibition in subsection (3)(a).

(4B) In subsections (4) and (4A) “payment” means a payment of charges for regulated claims services provided in connection with the PPI claim.

(4C) A relevant regulator—

(a) must ensure that it has appropriate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing compliance with subsections (1) and (3) as they apply to the regulated persons for whom it is the relevant regulator;

(b) may make rules for the purpose of doing so (which may include provision applying, in relation to breaches of subsections (1) and (3), functions the relevant regulator has in relation to breaches of another restriction.)”.

This amendment and Amendment 48 would mean that firms would be required to pay CMC costs for PPI claims where the firm is found to be at fault and the consumer has used a CMC rather than claim direct. This would only apply for the interim period until the new FCA regulations come into force, or until August 2019 which is the deadline for making PPI claims, whichever is sooner.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 48, in clause 28, page 24, line 34, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—

“(2) The rule is that an authorised person—

(a) must not charge a claimant, for a service which is a regulated claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, unless those charges are made in accordance with section 26(4); and

(b) must not enter into an agreement that provides for the payment by a claimant, for a service which is a regulated claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, of charges which would breach, or are capable of breaching, the prohibition in paragraph (a).

(3) All charges incurred by an authorised person in the course of providing regulated claims management activity in connection with a claimant’s PPI claim must be paid by the person against whom that claimant’s successful PPI claim was made.

(4) An authorised person—

(a) must not charge a person, for a service which is a regulated claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, an amount which exceeds the fee cap for the claim; and

(b) must not enter into an agreement that provides for the payment by a person, for a service which is a regulated claims management activity provided in connection with the claimant’s PPI claim, of charges which would breach, or are capable of breaching, the prohibition in paragraph (a).

(4A) A breach of subsection (2) is not actionable as a breach of statutory duty (despite section 138D(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) but—

(a) any payment made by a claimant in breach of subsection (2) is recoverable by the claimant; and

(b) any agreement entered into in breach of subsection (2)(b) is not enforceable to the extent it provides for a payment that breaches or is capable of breaching the prohibition in subsection (2)(a).

(4B) A breach of subsection (4) is not actionable as a breach of statutory duty (despite section 138D(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) but—

(a) any payment made by a person in excess of the fee cap for a PPI claim is recoverable by the person; and

(b) any agreement entered into in breach of subsection (4)(b) is not enforceable to the extent it provides for a payment that breaches or is capable of breaching the prohibition in subsection (4)(a).

(4C) In subsections (4A) and (4B) “payment” means a payment of charges for regulated claims services provided in connection with the PPI claim.”

This amendment and Amendment 47 would mean that firms would be required to pay CMC costs for PPI claims where the firm is found to be at fault and the consumer has used a CMC rather than claim direct. This would only apply for the interim period until the new FCA regulations come into force, or until August 2019 which is the deadline for making PPI claims, whichever is sooner.

[Jack Dromey]

The amendment would allow consumers to keep 100% of the PPI compensation. The Government introduced an interim cap on the fees that claims management companies could charge consumers in relation to payment protection insurance claims. That was a welcome move in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to protect consumers from paying disproportionately high fees for what is often very little work. The Ministry of Justice estimates that the average amount of commission charged to consumers by CMCs is 28% plus VAT. The FCA estimates that the average payout for PPI mis-selling is around £1,700 which means that a CMC would, on average, charge a successful claimant £476 plus VAT.

Although the proposed fee cap will reduce the amount that consumers have to pay to CMCs, it would still mean an average charge of £340, with VAT on top. If the Government want to take meaningful action to protect consumers from high fees, they should propose a solution that allows consumers to keep 100% of their PPI compensation. They should require firms to pay CMC costs for PPI claims—capped at 20% and VAT—when they are at fault and the consumer has used a CMC rather than claiming directly.

This measure would apply only for the interim period until new FCA regulations come into force, or until August 2019, which is the deadline for making PPI claims, whichever is sooner. This would incentivise firms still paying compensation—and it is shameful that they still are; getting justice for the people concerned is like pulling teeth—to proactively reach out and encourage consumers to make claims directly to them, and I am bound to say that it is something that should and must happen. It would also fully protect consumers from paying high charges to CMCs.

In summary, the Government’s proposal is a welcome step in the right direction, but I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why he cannot take this further step that would see those that were wronged receive 100% of the compensation so that this wrong is put right.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out amendments 47 and 48, which seek to make firms at fault pay the fees for claims management services used to pursue successful PPI claims. I understand that this approach is intended to incentivise firms to be more proactive in offering compensation when dealing with consumer complaints. However, it could encourage more speculative and unmeritorious claims, adding waste to the redress system, to the detriment of consumers and the industry. The amendment also has the potential to allow CMCs to charge consumers directly when they are unsuccessful in pursuing a PPI claim. This would serve only to add to the incentives for taking forward speculative claims, and I am not sure that that is the Opposition’s intention.

I also do not believe that the measure is necessary. The FCA is already taking direct action to ensure that firms do not make it difficult for consumers to claim compensation, and there have been significant improvements in the handling of PPI complaints by firms. By September 2017, firms were upholding around 80% of claims. Since January 2011, firms have handled over 20.8 million PPI complainants and paid over £29 billion in redress to consumers found to have been mis-sold a PPI policy, and rightly so.

In addition, as of March 2017 firms had sent over 5.5 million letters to customers they identified as being at high risk of having suffered a past mis-sale and who had not complained, inviting them to do so. The FCA also launched a two-year consumer awareness campaign in August 2017, paid for by the relevant firms, to raise awareness of the deadline and encourage consumers to decide whether to complain, as well as highlighting free routes for pursuing a claim.

Finally, it is important to note that consumers do not need to use the CMCs to make a claim. They can go directly to the relevant firm and subsequently to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free. Making a complaint is a simple process that many people will be able to do for themselves. A number of sources of information are available to help individuals to understand how to make a complaint, including websites and phone lines for the FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service. In the light of these arguments, I encourage the Opposition spokesman to withdraw the amendment.

[Jack Dromey]

I will make two points in response. First, the Minister is right to say that there are channels other than CMCs, which we will come to later. Until such time as we ban cold calling by CMCs, there will continue to be an industry of CMCs out there ringing people up to ask, “Have you got a PPI claim?”

Secondly, I do not see the problem in sending an unmistakable message to those who have wronged the public that they must put that right, and that they must do so proactively. Rather than sitting on the knowledge of a lot of mis-selling, failing to put that right and waiting until a claim is made, the better approach in the public interest would be to send the unmistakable message that it is better to settle with those who have been wronged, or else.

I am not completely convinced by the Minister’s reply, but I am convinced that he—a decent man with an open mind—will reflect on this further. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 28 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

New clauses 4 and 5 place a duty on the Law Society of England and Wales to cap fees in relation to financial service claims management activity, and give the Law Society of Scotland a power to restrict fees charges for that activity. The clauses also give some legal services regulators in England and Wales a power to restrict fees charged for broader claims management services, and give the Treasury a power to extend the Law Society of Scotland’s fee-capping power to broader activity in the future. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, claims management services are carried out not only by claims management companies, but sometimes by legal service providers as well. That is why the Government are introducing the new clauses. They will ensure that consumers are protected no matter which type of claims management service provider they use—whether regulated by the legal service regulators or by the Financial Conduct Authority.

As Members will know, fees charged for claims management services have attracted severe criticism. The Public Accounts Committee 2016 report on financial services mis-selling commented:

“It is a failure of the system of regulation and redress that claims management companies have been able to make up to £5 billion out of compensation to victims of mis-selling.”

The Bill already contains provisions to ensure that the FCA will cap fees in relation to financial product and services claims, and new clause 4 replicates that duty in relation to the Law Society of England and Wales. It also mirrors the FCA’s broader power to restrict fees for claims management activities by providing a similar power to the General Council of the Bar, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, and the Law Society of England and Wales. That power will enable them to make rules that cap the fees that legal service providers charge for claims management services. That will enable the legal services regulators to adapt to any future changes in the market, alongside the FCA.

New clause 4 also gives the Law Society of Scotland a power to restrict fees in relation to financial services claims management, and new clause 5 gives the Treasury a power to extend that provision to include wider claims management activity, should that be required in the future. That gives the flexibility required to respond to any future changes in the claims management sector. Although the Government are of the view that the regulation of claims management activity is reserved, we have worked in a spirit of co-operation with the Scottish Government to ensure that the provisions are fit for purpose in Scotland, and that Scottish consumers have the same high standards of protection when using claims management services as consumers in England and Wales. I hope Members agree that the new clauses collectively provide for the best protection of consumers across Great Britain.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister was right to refer to the Public Accounts Committee report. It is nothing short of scandalous that there has been an immense industry, often on the back of misery. Consumers deserve to be properly protected in future. The clauses are sensible because they go beyond claims management companies, with the duty on the Law Society. Of course, it is about not only CMCs, but legal service providers.

Finally, with regard to new clause 5, it makes sense for there to be flexibility to extend the provision to restrict fees in the future, given potential changes in the nature of the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Extension of power of the Law Society of Scotland to make rules

“(1) The Treasury may by regulations amend section (Legal services regulators’ rules: charges for claims management services) for the purpose of extending the power in subsection (3) of that section so as to apply to—

(a) all relevant claims management agreements;

(b) all relevant claims management activity;

(c) any description of relevant claims management agreement;

(d) any description of relevant claims management activity.

(2) The Treasury must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under this section—

(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;

(b) may make incidental, supplemental or consequential provision.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(John Glen.)

This new clause would permit the Treasury, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, to make regulations which extend the power given to the Law Society of Scotland to make rules by NC4.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Cold calling about claims management services

“(1) The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2426) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 21 (calls for direct marketing purposes), after paragraph (5) insert—

‘(6) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a case falling within regulation 21A.’

(3) After regulation 21 insert—

‘21A Calls for direct marketing of claims management services

(1) A person must not use, or instigate the use of, a public electronic communications service to make unsolicited calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (2).

(2) Those circumstances are where the called line is that of a subscriber who has previously notified the caller that for the time being the subscriber consents to such calls being made by, or at the instigation of, the caller on that line.

(3) A subscriber must not permit the subscriber’s line to be used in contravention of paragraph (1).

(4) In this regulation, “claims management services” means the following services in relation to the making of a claim—

(a) advice;

(b) financial services or assistance;

(c) acting on behalf of, or representing, a person;

(d) the referral or introduction of one person to another;

(e) the making of inquiries.

(5) In paragraph (4), “claim” means a claim for compensation, restitution, repayment or any other remedy or relief in respect of loss or damage or in respect of an obligation, whether the claim is made or could be made—

(a) by way of legal proceedings,

(b) in accordance with a scheme of regulation (whether voluntary or compulsory), or

(c) in pursuance of a voluntary undertaking.’

(4) In regulation 24 (information to be provided for the purposes of regulations 19 to 21)—

(a) in the heading, for ‘, 20 and 21’ substitute ‘to 21A’;

(b) in paragraph (1)(b), after ‘21’ insert ‘or 21A’.”—(John Glen.)

This amendment inserts a provision into the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations which prohibits live unsolicited telephone calls for the purposes of direct marketing in relation to claims management services except where the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[John Glen]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I again seek your guidance, Mr Rosindell. I presume I am able now to address new clause 6 and our new clause 9. New clause 8 has not been selected, but I want to make reference to a couple of points of substance in relation to it, which are relevant to this debate. I seek your guidance on that.

[The Chair]

Certainly you may speak to new clause 9. New clause 8 has not been selected, so you must mention it in a way that would be acceptable. You are experienced enough to follow the deft way the hon. Member for Harrow West dealt with it.

[Jack Dromey]

Perhaps I will emulate the fleetness of parliamentary foot of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.

I will start with a rather bizarre example, which is of no consequence to me personally. Ironically, as we were getting ready for Committee last week, I had a cold call. Out of the blue, the individual concerned said, “I understand you’ve had a car accident,” to which I replied, “Yes. How did you know?” She said, “We’re here to help you.” I then said, “Actually, the car accident was 38 years ago. I pulled up at a pedestrian crossing and somebody ran into the back of my car.” She said, “Oh. I’m not sure we can help you with those circumstances.”

To make a more serious point, the new clause would require the FCA to ban cold calling for claims management companies. Critically, it would also ban the use by those companies of any data obtained by cold calling. Together, those provisions would make cold calling for CMCs illegal and would cut off the revenue stream to cold callers by preventing CMCs from using their data. The new clause would also allow the FCA to set up appropriate penalties for any breach of either of those bans, which would come into effect with the passing of the Bill.

Cold calling is not just a social nuisance; it is often a direct threat to consumers’ financial wellbeing. It is often an invitation—or, more exactly, an inducement—to criminal activity. There are now 2.6 million cold calls every month. That number has increased by 180% in the last year. Whatever the Information Commissioner’s Office is doing is not working, and the problem continues to grow rapidly.

A Which? report from November 2016 found that in 17 of the 18 cities surveyed, more than a third of all private phone calls were nuisance calls, and that four in 10 people in the Scottish sample were intimidated by the calls. Older people are particularly vulnerable to cold callers. I have seen that personally: a 99-year-old woman was cold called four times, and on one of those occasions she suffered serious consequences as a result. Like her, more than 11 million pensioners are targeted annually by cold callers. Fraudsters make 250 million calls a years—equivalent to eight every second. For some, they are a danger. They prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society.

There is sadly no better example of that than the British Steel workers in Port Talbot. When a deal was struck last year to keep Tata Steel UK afloat, members of the £15 billion British Steel pension fund were given the option to shift their assured benefits to the Pension Protection Fund, join a new retirement scheme backed by Tata or transfer to personal pension funds. However, that led to what has been called a “feeding frenzy” at the site, as dodgy introducers preyed on workers, who were more than likely confused about the position of their pension, and may not have had the financial education to make such an important decision themselves.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

We all agree that cold calling is a huge issue, but the problem with the new clause is that it seeks to place the burden of establishing when cold calling is taking place on the FCA. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that approach would divert resources away from what it should be doing—ensuring that the right business models are in place and that there is better transparency for consumers?

[Jack Dromey]

Given the evidence of huge growth in cold calling and the consequences that individuals can pay as a result—I will give a tragic example in a moment—our strong view is that the time has come to send an unmistakeable message: a ban on cold calling, full stop.

I will give an example in relation to Port Talbot and the consequences I referred to last week. The Pensions Advisory Service was eventually asked to go down to Port Talbot, some months after the crisis developed. It told me only last week the heartbreaking story of that shift supervisor who had worked for British Steel all his life. He burst into tears and said, “Wrongly advised, I made the wrong decision.” He also said, “I’ll never, ever forgive myself, because the 20 people on my shift who I supervised all followed my example.”

The evidence is powerful and compelling, and I do not think for one moment the Government would argue against it. The question is: what do we now do about it? The introducer concerned at Port Talbot—I have often described them as vultures—bought meals for workers in local pubs and convinced them to transfer their pensions, often into totally unsuitable schemes, where some could have lost up to six figures from the total of their pension.

The Financial Conduct Authority is probing concerns about pension changes that appear to have affected about 130,000 members of the Tata retirement fund. South Wales police are now investigating. That is a clear example from the world of work where dodgy practices have been used, with a negative and often serious impact on workers’ finances. Our new clause would stop all unsolicited real-time approaches by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of companies carrying out claims management services.

There is a huge and rising number of claims for alleged holiday sickness. In July and August 2016 alone, one operator took 750,000 British, 800,000 German and 375,000 Scandinavian customers to Spain. The Scandinavians lodged 39 claims for holiday sickness—essentially, food poisoning—the Germans 114 and the British about 4,000. It is not only pensions where cold calling has had a negative impact. It is also commonplace for claims management companies to use it to harvest cases of road traffic accidents as well as for holiday sickness, where sadly, the UK has become the world leader.

The Association of British Travel Agents said there were about 35,000 claims for holiday sickness in 2016: a 500% rise since 2013. About one in five Britons—19%, or about 9.5 million people—has been approached about making a compensation claim for holiday sickness. As a result, hoteliers in the markets affected are now threatening significant price increases, and some are even considering withdrawing the all-inclusive product from UK holidaymakers entirely. The great majority of honest holidaymakers may suffer as a consequence of the wrongdoing of a small minority, encouraged by cold calling.

A total ban on cold calling would likely lead to a fall in the harvesting of false holiday sickness claims. In the words of Lord Sharkey in the other place a ban is necessary to deal with the “omnipresent menace” of cold calls. Baroness Altmann has said:

“People need protection from this nuisance now. They shouldn’t have to wait still more years for a ban....Direct approaches to people on their mobiles or home phones should have no place in the modern world of business.”

That kind of thing not only costs our travel industry a huge amount and raises prices for everyone but directly encourages criminal acts on a larger scale, and it is welcome that there have been some early prosecutions accordingly.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue and for mentioning ABTA, which is based in my constituency. ABTA has done a huge amount of work on the need to introduce exactly what he advocates, to highlight incidents of people fraudulently trying to make claims, supported by cold calling, while posting on Facebook and elsewhere about how much they have enjoyed their holidays and how boozed up they have been. There is clearly a need to address the issue.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. ABTA is increasingly concerned about the consequences for consumers more generally and for its business in particular. Hoteliers and airlines will suffer unless the growing scandal, at the heart of which is shameless cold calling, is ended.

We already ban cold calling for mortgages, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing an immediate ban on cold calling for pensions, but we should also be able to ban cold calling for CMCs, and include a ban on the commercial use of data obtained by cold calling. An unmistakeable message needs to be sent: “If you cold call illegally we will probably catch you and, in any case, you will not be able to sell or use any data collected illegally”.

Laws can, of course, be broken, which is why the new clause gives the FCA the power to set appropriate penalties for a breach of either of the bans. Since the banning of cold calling for mortgages, technology has made enormous progress, and we hope that the Government will be prepared to go yet further in the next stages. The ban on cold calling for mortgages has made truly massive-scale cold calling illegal, but the scale of cold calling continues to grow. Cold calling can and does have damaging and dangerous consequences, especially for the vulnerable, for the elderly, for workers like those in Port Talbot at a time of crisis in their lives, and for the business community. It is time to call a halt to all of that, which is what new clause 9 would do.

New clause 6 inserts a provision into the European Union’s privacy and electronic communications directive, which prohibits unsolicited telephone calls for the purposes of direct marketing, in relation to claims management services, except when the person called has given prior consent to receiving such calls. The provision will treat the telephone numbers of everyone cold called about claims management as if they were listed on the telephone preference service register. In 2017, the ICO received 11,805 reports of unsolicited direct marketing calls about claims management from people already on the TPS register, in addition to reports of 17,112 calls and texts for which absence from the register was not deemed to represent consent. The Government amendment will simply add more cases to the yearly total—28,917 in 2017—and will do little to stop the scourge of cold calling. We will not oppose the provision but we invite the Government to comment on our points.

On new clause 8, which has not been selected, the Chairman is absolutely right that it would be an abuse—

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot speak directly to new clause 8.

[Jack Dromey]

In the circumstances, of course I accept your ruling, Mr Rosindell. All I would say is that the example of the Port Talbot introducers is scandalous and the impact on the lives of the vulnerable is outrageous. We are determined to stamp out that practice. Coming back to the core proposal contained in our new clause, the time has come to ban cold calling, full stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Opposition new clause 9 is identical to the Lords amendment and seeks to compel the FCA to ban unsolicited direct approaches by, on behalf of or for the benefit of companies providing claims management services. It also seeks to ban those companies from using data obtained through those methods. Unfortunately, it would give the FCA a duty it cannot enforce under its current regime.

I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that the Government are committed to tackling the issue properly and have consulted with the FCA, the claims management regulation unit and the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that Government new clause 6 does so in the most effective way—it will amend the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 to prohibit direct marketing calls by claims management services unless an individual has given their consent. I was challenged on that matter, and I will clarify by letter.

The provision will be implemented by the ICO as the regulator responsible for the enforcement of the regulations. It has considerable powers and can issue fines of up £500,000. Under the incoming general data protection regulation, the unlawful use of personal data can attract fines of up to £17 million or 4% of annual turnover. The ICO is committed to enforcing the sanctions in the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and has issued nearly £3 million in monetary penalties for breaches of direct marketing since January last year. We have worked with the ICO in developing the new clause, and it is confident that it will be able to enforce it in conjunction with the FCA.

The FCA will of course have a role to play and will use all the tools available to take action where it discovers behaviour causing consumer harm. I acknowledge the cases that both Members raised, which are unacceptable. I am also confident that the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches are identified. I am sure members of the Committee will agree that it is better to include a new clause that will work—Government new clause 6—than to include new clause 9. As such, I encourage both Members not to press their new clause to a vote.

[Jack Dromey]

We are not convinced. It comes down fundamentally to the issue of principle. If it is right that all the evidence is that cold calling has been deeply damaging for the elderly, for the vulnerable, for those at a time of crisis in their lives, such as the Port Talbot workers and now, dare I say it, Carillion workers, and for business, then in those circumstances the practice has to end, full stop. The difference between the two new clauses is that we are saying precisely that with new clause 9. While the Government take some steps in that direction with new clause 6, the reality is that this unacceptable practice will continue and is likely to continue to grow.

The Minister talked about penalties handed out thus far of £3 million, but it is a billion-pound industry of abuse. We therefore believe it to be right to send that unmistakeable message so that never again will those people, particularly those at a time of crisis in their lives, fear that supposedly friendly phone call that time and again leads them to make disastrous decisions with disastrous consequences. Our intention is to press new clause 9 to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman]

Although the Committee has finished earlier than programmed, I think it is fair to say that the Bill has received thorough scrutiny from hon. Members in all particular ways. Some measures have been more scrutinised than others, even though they were not particularly on the amendment paper as appropriate for scrutiny.

I put on the record my thanks to your good self, Mr Rosindell, and also to Mr Stringer for keeping us moderately in order and for running the sessions so smoothly. I also thank Hansard, the Doorkeepers and the Clerks for enabling us to get through the business so efficiently. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and myself, I thank the multitude of officials who have kept us in order. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, for the Scottish National party, for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the debate. We believe we are taking forward a Bill that all parties fundamentally support, and doing the right thing. I look forward to continuing any of those further discussions on Report.

[Jack Dromey]

To respond briefly, I echo those thanks to all who have played their part in the passage thus far of the Bill, initially through the other place and then through the House of Commons.

I will make two points. First, as I said on Second Reading, this is a good Bill and a welcome step in the right direction. The establishment of the SFGB is welcome indeed. Crucially, we now need to make it effective at the next stages. In Committee we set out, as we said on Second Reading, to further strengthen the Bill and to inject what I called a “sense of urgency” into certain of the provisions contained in the Bill.

Secondly, I hope the Government will reflect on what has been said in respect of both cold calling and default guidance on Report. In conclusion, it would be churlish not to recognise that this is a welcome step in the right direction. I thank both Ministers concerned for their constructive engagement. Would that that was always possible on all occasions on all issues with those on the Government Front Bench. Having said that, it would be churlish indeed not to reflect that engagement. I hope the Ministers accept on Report the overwhelming logic and power of argument in respect of cold calling and default.

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their comments, and can I say what a pleasure it has been to chair this Committee?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.