Mike Crockart
Main Page: Mike Crockart (Liberal Democrat - Edinburgh West)(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered nuisance calls.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. Many Members who would like to have been here for this debate are unable to be with us for various reasons, including constituency commitments, debates in Westminster Hall and, sadly, the funeral of our friend, Paul Goggins. Our thoughts are with the friends and family of that departed Member.
I would like to use this opportunity to say that my thoughts are with the family of a three-year-old in my constituency who went missing from his home overnight last night. We all fervently hope for Mikaeel Kular’s safe return as soon as is possible.
It has been a long and hard road to get to this point. When I started my campaign 18 months ago, I did not for the life of me think that it would grow to the size that it now is. I must thank some people and institutions for their help. I thank The Sunday Post and Which? for their support and their campaigns. They have both launched petitions over the past 18 months. There are now more than 130,000 signatures from members of the public urging action on this issue.
In response to that, I set up the all-party parliamentary group on nuisance calls in July last year to look into the unsolicited marketing industry and the issue of nuisance calls in particular. It is made up of Members of all parties and I especially thank the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for his support in co-chairing and running the group. Unfortunately, he cannot be present today because of a constituency commitment. The all-party parliamentary group has completed an inquiry and a report, which I will rely on for many of my remarks.
I will set the scene by defining some of the concepts that we will discuss, because this is a complex area. Nuisance means different things to different people. The term “nuisance call” is used to capture a wide range of types of calls from silent calls to live marketing calls and from harassment to financial scams. By definition, nuisance calls are a problem for consumers. They interrupt family meal times or are received wearily after a hard day’s work. They often demand that elderly or vulnerable people answer the phone when it is an effort to do so. For some people they are a mere irritation, but for others they cause significant harm or distress, and they can even make people feel intimidated when answering their phone. Not all nuisance calls are illegal. Consumers sometimes term legitimate contact a nuisance, for example if a call comes at an awkward time of the day. Nuisance is often in the eye of the beholder.
For the purposes of this debate, we will focus on marketing calls, whether silent or live and whether over a fixed line or a mobile, that are made without the consumer’s consent. We will also consider the problem of nuisance spam texts, although the consent mechanism differs. Marketing calls operate on an opt-out basis. Until a person says explicitly that they do not wish to receive marketing calls, companies that are engaged in direct marketing are able legally to contact them by telephone. In contrast, marketing texts operate on an opt-in basis. They can be sent legally only if a consumer states that they are happy to receive them.
The definitions of terms such as live marketing calls and marketing text messages follow those that are used by the main regulators, which are Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office. The definitions focus on the type of call and do not cover situations in which, although the individual call may be legal, the pattern, frequency or time of the call should classify it as a nuisance.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly on securing this debate and on the campaign that he has been running. Does he accept that the fundamental problem that our constituents complain to us about is that there are frequently multiple calls and that calls are often made at night time? I have had constituents complaining of more than 15 calls in a day and dozens of constituents have complained that people call them at 1, 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, which is particularly alarming to members of the public.
Mike Crockart
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is unable to be here, outlined a very worrying set of circumstances to me, which may well have affected the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. In the last week, a large number of automated calls have been made at those sorts of times in the morning, starting with the phrase, “The Government want you to know that—”. The time at which the calls are made indicate that it will almost inevitably be bad news. Those calls can be very worrying and cause immense distress.
Unfortunately, the regulatory framework for nuisance calls is complex. That is partly because it has emerged through historical accident, rather than by design. Ofcom regulates silent and abandoned calls. The regulations state that when using automatic dialler equipment, which must have been used in the cases that I have just outlined, no more than 3% of answered call attempts should be abandoned because no live agent is available at the call centre. That means that if 1 million calls are made, 30,000 nuisance calls can be made legally.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for enforcing data protection regulations, including the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which I will call PECR from now on. Under PECR, the Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for enforcement of live calls, which includes recorded calls and spam texts.
Alongside the two main regulators, a number of other organisations, with or without regulatory powers, have an interest. Claims management companies, which are responsible for the vast share of calls, are regulated by the claims management regulator. The Financial Conduct Authority will shortly regulate debt management and payday lending companies. The National Fraud Authority and the police have a role to play when nuisance calls pertain to fraud, scams or other forms of illegal activity. PhonepayPlus regulates premium rate phone numbers and services in the UK. That is by no means a full list.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the missing three-year-old boy from his constituency, on the border of mine in Edinburgh. Like him, I hope that he is soon found safe and brought back to his home.
Is not one problem that nuisance calls that purport to come from outside the UK, which by definition are particularly difficult to deal with? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must at least try to deal with that aspect of the problem, which people are unsurprisingly concerned about?
Mike Crockart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and there are two issues raised. Of course, the vast majority of calls coming from outside the UK are made on behalf of companies operating within the UK, so they should be covered by the regulators. The difficulty is that there are all sorts of problems identifying where those calls have come from and getting the calling line identity to ensure that they can be traced. I hope that the Minister will have something to say later about how he is looking to deal with the various difficulties.
The complexity of the regulation leads to a lack of focus and, therefore, to a lack of action. I welcome the Minister’s involvement, however, which has helped to deal with the first. We will see shortly whether it is helping to deal with the second, as well.
In the all-party group’s inquiry, we made a number of attempts to come to a final assessment of the scale of the problem, but the vast array of inconsistent data makes that difficult. The regulators receive about 6,000 complaints a month about nuisance calls. Ofcom reports that it receives about 3,000 relating to silent calls, and since setting up its online reporting tool in March 2012, the Information Commissioner’s Office has received about 240,000 complaints about unsolicited calls and texts. There is no evidence that the problem is decreasing. The ICO, Ofcom and the Telephone Preference Service all report an overall growth in the number of complaints over the past three years, but complaints data alone fail to tell us the full story. As part of its “Calling Time” campaign, Which? set up a web portal to direct consumer complaints to the relevant regulator.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman may recall that when BT gave evidence to the all-party group, it said that its complaints and nuisance calls line received some 65,000 calls a month—from memory, I think that was the figure. If so many calls are coming in but so few are going to the regulator, that suggests that there is a serious problem and that there is no confidence that the regulator will do much about them.
Mike Crockart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although I am not sure whether the failure to complain results just from a lack of confidence. Part of it may well be a lack of knowledge and a lack of willingness to commit time to go through the process of making a complaint. However, I was about to make the point that he raises.
Data from the portal that Which? set up showed that only about half the people who used it went on to make a full complaint to the regulators. As the hon. Gentleman says, the number of nuisance calls received far exceeds the number of official complaints. BT estimates that its nuisance call bureau receives about 50,000 calls a month— that is the figure I have, which is bad enough. There are also nuisance texts, and in the evidence that the all-party group received, the technology company Pinesoft estimated that about 8.7 million are sent every day.
Ofcom’s omnibus survey is generally considered to produce the most accurate estimate of the number of nuisance calls that people receive, because it involves people making a diary of the calls that they receive for a certain period. It has resulted in an estimate that consumers who experience unwanted calls receive an average of about two a week, with four out of five participants receiving at least one nuisance call during the four-week research period. About a quarter of people recalled receiving more than 10 calls in a four-week period. However one calculates it, the annual number of unwanted calls is almost certainly more than 1 billion.
Another recent piece of research was commissioned by StepChange, a debt charity, and conducted by YouGov. It found that more than 3.2 million British adults who had received an unsolicited marketing call or text had been left afraid to answer the phone as a result of those communications.
Guy Opperman
On that point about the fear factor, the result is that the telephone is taken out of the use of people who would otherwise regard it as a normal service in their home. It is manifestly clear on any interpretation that such texts and calls are increasing, and that the Government need to do more to give the regulator and others teeth, so that we can stop them.
Mike Crockart
Absolutely. That is a good point, and that fear is concentrated among certain groups, such as the elderly, who are at home during the day more, and those who, as StepChange found, are hounded by companies encouraging them to take out payday loans and so on. Just over 26.3 million British adults have been offered high-interest credit such as payday loans via unsolicited marketing calls or messages, and 83% of British adults feel that consumers need greater protection from them.
As I said, people who get a high number of nuisance calls tend to be elderly, and a recent trial of call-blocking technology by trading standards in Angus, in Scotland, found that about 40% of phone calls received by elderly and vulnerable residents were nuisance calls. It also found that older people were the victims of 40% of all nuisance calls. As I said, that is partly because of the timing of nuisance calls, with 78% being made between 8 am and 6 pm, when most people are at work. The trial found that without call-blocking technology, participants were extremely concerned about scams, the risk of a fall when answering the phone, feeling helpless to stop calls and feeling intimidated by callers. Once call-blocking technology was installed, all those concerns were reduced considerably.
I decided to carry out a trial in my constituency by installing call-blocking technology in the homes of two constituents who were being particularly bothered by nuisance calls. The results were quite shocking and bore out what has been found elsewhere. Mrs Moffat is a constituent who is deaf and has to use a textphone, and her husband suffers from early dementia. Since 27 August, 65% of her incoming calls have been nuisance calls. Since 11 September another constituent, Mrs Manchester, has received 212 calls, a third of which have been nuisance calls. Interestingly, the figure is down from 43% two months ago, which seems to indicate that the use of call-barring technology alone is reducing their instance.
The argument is strengthened by examining StepChange’s research. A particular problem are the nuisance calls targeted at indebted people, which are causing tangible stress and anxiety. Some 65% of respondents to a website poll said that they were afraid to answer the phone as a result of nuisance calls or texts. That stress and anxiety risks exacerbating existing mental health difficulties. According to the World Health Organisation, the more debt people hold, the more likely they are to suffer from mental health problems. That further serves to illustrate why it is essential to ensure better protection for financially vulnerable consumers from the potential harm of nuisance calls or messages. Yet there is clear evidence that those people are being targeted.
More than 26.3 million British adults say that they have been offered high-interest credit via unsolicited marketing calls. For those who do not need it, that is annoying, but it is easy enough just to delete the messages. However, financial difficulties can lead to poor economic choices, and 6% of respondents said that as a result of a nuisance call or message, they had taken out a financial service or product that actually worsened their financial position. The lure of a no-questions-asked loan is difficult to pass up when someone can justify to themselves that it is only for a week until they get back on their feet.
The problem of protecting vulnerable consumers is the most pressing, since that is where consumer detriment is most significant. Whatever actions are taken to address the problem of nuisance calls in the longer term, that issue must be dealt with now using whatever available means.
The difficulty of coming up with an agreed figure for nuisance calls is not merely academic, because it reveals two issues that go to the heart of the problem. First, it suggests a lack of coherence in information and data about nuisance calls. Data are being generated and collected, or discarded, over a large number of organisations and are not effectively shared or centrally stored. For example, the all-party group was surprised to learn in its inquiry that BT does not share with the regulator data generated by its nuisance calls services. Similarly, trueCall, a manufacturer of call-blocking technology, reported that it had not been able to interest the regulators in the data generated through the use of its products. In addition, the TPS does not share data with the Direct Marketing Commission, but both are arms of the Direct Marketing Association.
The discrepancy between the number of initial reports received by consumer-facing organisations such as Which? and BT, and the final number of complaints received by the regulators, suggests that not all consumers who receive nuisance calls follow through the reporting structure. That could be for a number of reasons, but the most likely are that the complaints mechanisms are too onerous; the complainant lacks the necessary information to make a complaint, such as the name of the company or its telephone number; or, as has been said, people believe there is little point in making a complaint. The result is that we see only part of the picture at any one time, which makes it all the more important for us to act.
On the economics of nuisance calls, I am not saying that we must ban all direct marketing. The direct marketing industry undoubtedly contributes financially to the UK economy. Call centres alone employ more than 1 million people in the UK. Direct marketing techniques are used by a huge number of companies from a wide range of sectors to generate business. At its best, direct marketing can be informative and useful to consumers, helping them to find the best deal and the most suitable product for their needs.
On the other hand, nuisance calls cause such a high level of irritation that it is easy to forget that there is a market for them. They are made to generate sales. Their continued existence means that we can assume only that they are at times successful. The claims management industry is consistently responsible for the largest share of complaints, but nuisance calls originate from a wide cross-section of industries. In live calls, the top topics of communication are payment protection insurance reclaim, accident claims and energy. The top topics for automated calls are, similarly, debt management, PPI and energy. Other topics include research and surveys; so-called sugging, when the caller pretends to be from a legitimate market research organisation; Government grants, such as for loft insulation; and insurance and telecoms.
The inquiry heard evidence that an outbound live marketing call can be made for as little as 20p—the cost drops to just 1p for automatic dialler equipment. The average PPI claim is for around £2,700, with claims management companies receiving, on average, around 25% of that. The economics of the industry are clear: a single win can cover the cost of 3,125 live calls or 62,500 automated calls. That helps to explain the market in lead generation. We do not know the underlying figures, but it seems reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of calls are made by lead-generation companies, which work to collect data and potential leads for other companies, which then make the final sales call.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman is dealing eloquently with the economics of the process. Does he accept the proposition that the likelihood of our constituents taking calls between 9 o’clock at night and 6 o’clock in the morning is very limited? Does he agree that the Government could regulate against night-time calls, which are a waste of money for those companies, even if they put the auto-dial on and leave the building?
Mike Crockart
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I will go on to deal with the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance that covers exactly that problem.
The inquiry heard evidence that the low cost of making those calls means that there is no economic driver to undertake any initial targeting or research. Calls are so cheap that it is economically effective simply to dial telephone numbers in sequence. In comparison, with direct mail marketing there is a cost for delivering and returning badly targeted mail.
Having established the terrifying scale of the problem, it is clear that major reform is required, by Government and regulators, and by the telecoms and direct marketing industries. There is a need for major change, but there is also a danger of being paralysed by the necessary strategies, consultations, proposals and counter-proposals.
The all-party parliamentary group report published in October contains 16 recommendations. Ministers have a copy of it, but I should like to make the case for four areas in which urgent action is both necessary and possible, the first of which is a basic one relating to consent to receive calls and TPS registration. There are around 25 million landlines in the UK, of which 19 million, which is around three quarters, are registered with the TPS. There are 71 million mobile phones—more than the number of people in the UK—and many are similarly registered with the TPS. Each and every day, however, there are more than 2 million nuisance calls and texts.
First-party consent should override TPS registration. Maintaining a direct relationship with customers is key to any company and is valued by many of those customers. Nothing in the report seeks to limit contact when it benefits both sides and is properly consented to. However, third-party consent is a grey area. It is commonly referred to as, “Carefully selected third parties or trusted partners,” which could just as easily mean, “Any company that is willing to pay for your details.” Sometimes, if people say, “I am TPS registered,” it is enough to end the calls. Even then, a breach of the regulations has happened. However, companies often argue that people have given permission at some point in the dim and distant past. In all conscience, who can ever say completely confidently that that cannot be true?
I am sure the Minister will argue that the ICO guidance is in place, so action is not needed. If every company adhered to the excellent guidance, he would be right, but they do not.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if every company were well behaved, we would not need a regulatory system at all? The point of the regulator is to deal with those who are unscrupulous or careless.
Mike Crockart
I agree entirely, and I am glad my right hon. Friend used the word “careless”, because carelessness and the ease of making calls without having to think too closely about the regulations cause much of the problem.
The regulations are in place and the guidance is excellent. A document issued by the ICO tells companies what to do. It states:
“Organisations can make live unsolicited marketing calls, but must not call any number registered with the TPS unless the subscriber (ie the person who gets the telephone bill) has specifically told them that they do not object to their calls.”
“Specifically” is the word, and the guidance seems straightforward. Hon. Members might think that it makes it clear that companies should not make calls in those circumstances.
The document also provides a checklist with an example of best practice, which states:
“Make sure your privacy notice is clear, honest and will be understood by the people it is aimed at. Avoid confusing mixtures of ‘opt-ins’ and ‘opt-outs’. Do not pre-tick consent boxes.”
Not only small, fly-by-night fraudulent companies ignore that guidance. I did a small survey yesterday of some well-known companies. Unfortunately, as expected, the reality is very different. Companies ask us in a multitude of ways to give our consent to be contacted. TalkTalk has a pre-ticked box for giving first-party consent, but there is an unticked box, which is better, for giving third-party consent. Virgin Media is confusing because its question combines first and third-party consent in one box, which defaults automatically to opt-in. As hon. Members would expect, John Lewis is much better. It excellently uses plain language on all its boxes and there is a separate box for each type of contact—e-mail, mobile or landline. Unfortunately, all the boxes are defaulted to opt-in.
I went to BT’s site and looked at buying a phone. Unfortunately, BT had nothing relating to first-party consent—there was no box to opt out or to opt in. The third-party consent option was defaulted to blank, meaning it was not defaulted to opt-in. I wondered about that, so I followed an obscure-looking link to its privacy policy, which states:
“Unless you tell us not to we assume we have your permission to tell you about BT products and services we think you might be interested in, we won’t send you marketing messages if you tell us not to.”
The way that one has to tell them not to, however, is by opting out when one receives them
“so you can opt out when we call you as part of a telemarketing campaign, you can opt out when we email you as part of a email marketing campaign, or you can write to a freepost address.”
That is absolutely not in tune with the guidance issued by the ICO. With such a confusing range of options, it is no wonder that consumers do not know what to tick or what they have consented to.
I will turn now to the level of proof expected by the ICO when presenting cases relating to nuisance texts. This should not take long, as the Government recently announced their willingness to lower the threshold, although they have not specified what the new level of detriment will be or when the change will be implemented. By reducing the level of detriment from “substantial damage or substantial distress” to “annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”, it would align the threshold with that expected of Ofcom in silent call cases.
The recent decision by an appeals court judge to overturn the fine that ICO issued to Tetrus late last year demonstrates exactly why this section is crucial. Tetrus had been engaged in sending unwanted text messages on an industrial scale, sending hundreds of thousands of texts every week from unregistered SIM cards that seek out potential claims for mis-selling of PPI or accidents. Tetrus did not make any effort to show that the recipients had given consent, or that they retained records of consent. It did not even register with ICO under the Data Protection Act 1998 as a controller of data.
For 10 years, it has been unlawful to use text messages for direct marketing unless the recipient has either asked for, or consented to, the communication. While the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 gave ICO the power to impose monetary penalties of up to £500,000, there are certain preconditions. First, the contravention must be serious and it must also be
“of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress.”
The appeals judge unfortunately decided to overturn the £140,000 penalty, as there were problems with the words “likely” and “substantial distress”. The judge ruled that the effect of the text messages was likely to cause
“widespread irritation but not widespread distress.”
That is an extremely worrying judgment that effectively gives a green light to any spam texter to send thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of unsolicited texts, as long as they are careful not to use distressing wording. That seems to be the only point in the judgment on which there is a point of debate. If nothing else I say today is accepted, movement on this issue would be welcome.
My next point is on industry action and on those industries involved in making calls. Many of the calls sent by Tetrus were attempting to generate leads for claims management companies. Those companies are now regulated by the claims management regulator. I mention that only to point out that it is a good example to follow. Claims management texts are on the wane and there is a reason for that. As a condition of the authorisation of a claims management company, they must
“comply with the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2013.”
I have a copy here and I need only read 30 words from this excellent document, because they say:
“Cold calling in person is prohibited. Any other cold calling, by telephone, email, fax or text, shall be in accordance with the direct marketing associations’ direct marketing code of practice.”
Those 30 words will hopefully have effectively dealt with texts from CMCs, because if their registration depends on abiding by the rules, it is amazing how the mind can be focused. That is why, when the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills was writing a report into payday lenders, I managed to sneak a recommendation into it. It said:
“We recommend that the FCA…discusses with the Information Commissioners Office…to establish the extent of bad practice”—
in the area of direct marketing.
“We…recommend that the FCA devises and issues a guidance note for payday lenders along similar lines to that established by the Claims Management Regulator in its Marketing and Advertising Guidance.”
The problem here is that we should not have to do it piecemeal—bit by bit, for each sector of industry. We should be able to set that at ICO level, where we are dealing with the method of making those calls.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman progresses, I should gently point out to him that he has spoken for over half an hour and, while the House appreciates the importance and intricacy of the points he is making, I know that he will bear it in mind that several other Members would like to speak this afternoon. While I do not urge him to conclude his remarks immediately, he might be thinking about drawing to a conclusion in due course.
Mike Crockart
I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am heading towards to my last few points, I promise.
The reason for slipping in that recommendation is that when we took evidence from payday lenders I had put them on the spot and asked them whether they engaged in this sort of direct marketing. They said, “Oh no, of course not. We wouldn’t do that.” I went back through my texts, therefore, and found nine directing me to a website offering payday loans: www.text4payday.com—don’t go there! On that website, I filled in details asking for a £200 loan over a month and pressed the button, “Get your cash”—not “Apply”, but “Get your cash”—expecting to be quoted a £50 charge, as advertised on the payday lender sites. Instead, I was directed to the QuickQuid website, which was one of the companies that gave evidence, where I was offered £400 over three months at a total cost of £754.
I left it at that, because I did not think it was a particularly good deal—I did not even press any buttons on the second website—but I then received e-mails and texts as follows: Tuesday 5 November, 1.16 pm, an e-mail saying there was one more step to take; same day and time, an e-mail giving me pre-contract information; half an hour later, a text urging me to sign the contract; 15 minutes later, a call from America urging me to sign up, which I declined; 20 minutes later, another e-mail giving me pre-contract information; the next day, at 6.32 am, an e-mail saying, “Hurry, application expiring soon”; at 7.59 am, another e-mail with pre-contract information; at 12.9 pm, another e-mail with account log-in information. That was worrying enough, but I then thought, “Well, is this website just a front for QuickQuid?” so I went on again, only this time I made up details. I called myself Boris Peep and made a further application. I put in my constituency address and immediately started getting texts saying “Hi, Boris. Your application has been approved.” So a made-up person ended up being approved for a payday loan. It is very worrying and needs urgent action.
The telecoms industry also needs to take action. It is time that some of them stopped looking on themselves almost as delivery companies—“As long as you pay the postage, you can send any old rubbish you like. In fact, the more the better, as we will charge you for each packet.” The industry needs to take responsibility for the nuisance calls it is delivering daily, and some have decided to do exactly that, which is welcome. In mobile circles, if someone receives a spam text, they can forward it using the short code 7726, and the date is aggregated and forwarded to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I want that model replicated for landlines. In our evidence session, we asked Warren Buckley from BT whether we could have it, and he said:
“From our point of view first of all I would have to set up a whole new service”
and
“work out where I’m going to hold that data… I’m not suggesting we can’t do it, and I’m not suggesting that we won’t do it,”
but
“it’s extremely difficult for us to do.”
I went on to BT’s website and found a helpful BT calling features user guide, which told me about its “choose to refuse” service, which lets people choose who gets through:
“Choose to Refuse lets you put a stop to nuisance or unwanted calls by stopping them from getting through to you. You can block up to ten numbers.”
To do this, customers dial 14258**, and the number is added to a database. That does not sound too onerous or difficult.
Sir Andrew Stunell
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the telephone companies are receiving the revenue from 1 billion nuisance calls a year, there is little incentive for them to throttle that profitable supply of calls?
Mike Crockart
I believe the expression is: you might suggest that, but I could not possibly comment.
Guy Opperman
Is not the point that the customer is effectively being charged and required to take action that the company should be taking without such a charge?
Mike Crockart
That is an excellent point, and one I will come to very shortly, as my final point, I promise.
Returning to Warren Buckley’s comments, I presumed it was difficult because other companies did different things, making it harder to ensure consistency, so I looked at what TalkTalk did. It has a product called “last caller barring”. To use it, the customer dials 1425, and confirms by dialling **, after the number they want to block has called. It sounded remarkably similar to BT, so I went to Sky where its calls feature summary says that Sky has last caller barring, but it costs £3.55 a month. To bar a number following a call, one has to dial—gosh!—14258 followed by **. Exactly what I want is already here; it is just that the telecoms companies are doing it independently and charging for it. It should not be that difficult to take this issue forward. I say to Ministers that some in the industry will say that doing this is too difficult, too technical and too costly, but I hope they that will not be distracted or dissuaded. The companies are doing this already, but charging for it. They should not be allowed to get away with it.
Finally, let me deal with helping our most vulnerable consumers. Right now in the UK, 100,000 people are being targeted over and over again by fraudsters. Their names and numbers appear on a “suckers list”, which is sold at premium rates among the criminal community. If criminals were repeatedly targeting these people by breaking into their homes, there would rightly be an outcry, and action would surely follow. Because they are being targeted by phone, however, we seem content to stand by and make excuses—excuses such as “All moneys collected from fines must be returned to the Treasury Consolidated Fund”—that means £2.36 million since 2010—or “We do not have the authority to establish a fund or a direct industry to do this”, or “Spending is severely restricted across Departments”.
As I mentioned, pilot schemes by trading standards in Angus, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire council areas saw call-blocking technology installed on vulnerable consumers’ domestic phone lines. The results of the trial show that up to 98% of nuisance calls were blocked, giving those people significantly better control over their lives and their safety. In its report, “Mind the Gap”, Age Scotland has called for this scheme to be rolled out nationwide, and I agree. We are not talking about a huge number of people or a huge sum of money, so I issue a challenge today— and not just to Government, but to local authorities, telecoms providers and manufacturers of call-blocking technology. Surely together, we can find the resources to protect these most vulnerable people in our society. I can always press delete or hang up for another few months until regulations are tightened or behaviour is improved, but unless we act, someone’s mother or grandfather will lose their life savings tomorrow.
Mike Crockart
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I presume that your words are in reaction to my earlier speech.
This debate felt like a consolation prize after the fall of my private Member’s Bill last year, but it has been an excellent debate, which has aired many of the issues that we identified during our all-party parliamentary inquiry. It is a complex area. Although my speech was described as a tour de force, there were many other points that were raised by others that I did not even mention, such as charging for caller ID, the effectiveness of the Telephone Preference Service, the EU directive, the exponential growth in the number of calls and the sense of a structure for regulators.
The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) described my short speech as a master class. I think the subtext was that I had bored her into submission, and I apologise for that. She introduced the idea of naming and shaming, which is already happening, but perhaps needs to happen even more.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) missed the first five minutes of my speech. I am happy to repeat them for him later. He brought up the subject of spoofing, and talked about the response from constituents. He made the point that people are suffering quietly, and not complaining about the issue, but when they are asked it is clear how angry they are.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), in attempting to steal my headlines, mentioned The Sunday Post a number of times, so I will trump her and mention the fact that it is @PoliticalYeti on Twitter. It has 602 followers—I am sure that that will help them a little bit. She contrasted the ability of the companies to make calls with the inability to make complaints by phone, which bothers me very greatly. She mentioned my alter ego, Boris Peep, so perhaps I should finish by giving an update. An organisation called Shopachecksms-uk—the wage day advance company has obviously passed or sold on my alter ego’s details—has offered me a cash loan of £500 delivered to my door. I want to make it clear in Hansard that I do not need it, thank you very much.
I thank the Minister. He is absolutely engaged and we have a good ministerial team that will be able to move things forward. We have had action on some things and not so much on others, but the best thing is the commitment.
This is a complex area, but it is clear that there is a willingness across the House to see action. I am confident that we will see that, but I urge the ministerial team to be bold and ambitious, as such action has the benefit of also being popular.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered nuisance calls.