Mobile Phone Contracts

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is resumed, and the debate may continue until 5.15 pm.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone. As I was saying before the Division bell sounded, the fact is that most providers do not tell the customer how much of their monthly bill goes towards the mobile handset and how much is paying for their calls and data. Citizens Advice has discovered that three of the four largest mobile providers continue to charge customers for a handset after the cost of the handset has already been paid during the term of the fixed deal. That means that loyal customers who choose to stay on the same phone plan after their fixed deal ends see no reduction in their bills. They continue to pay, unwittingly, for a handset for which they have already paid.

Who is most likely to be caught up in this so-called loyalty trap? Those aged over 65 are most likely to be stung, with 23% of over 65s with a handset-inclusive mobile phone contract staying in their contract for more than 12 months past the end of their fixed deal period, compared with only 13% of people aged under 65. Worse still, if someone does not switch they cannot tell how much their handset is costing them, and whether they are getting a good deal or not. Indeed, the total cost of a handset as part of a bundled contract can vary considerably, even among plans offered by the same provider. In some cases, the price difference can be as much as £400. Of the 706 bundled contracts analysed by Citizens Advice, 74% were more expensive than buying the same handset up front and using it with a SIM-only contract, which is quite astonishing.

Three, one of the largest mobile phone providers, has been in touch with me. That company recognises that the way the market is currently organised means that mobile bills lack transparency and are difficult for consumers to comprehend, which in turn leads to them paying more than they should—that is, more than they need to—for their mobile phones.

Dormant Betting Accounts

Debate between Patricia Gibson and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point; he talked earlier about the voluntary participation of the betting industry. To establish the exact sums involved—which I believe are significant, although I could be wrong—we really need the betting industry on board. Companies are quite reluctant to go down this road, for reasons that I am sure they could explain well enough themselves. The proposal has some merit, but how much money are we talking about? Let us have that conversation. Why would anybody be afraid or reluctant to have that conversation? I leave that thought hanging in the air for the hon. Gentleman to mull over at his leisure.

I have no doubt that the sums held in dormant accounts may be surprisingly large. Why do I say that? For the National Lottery, which allows 180 days for people to claim their prize money, unclaimed winnings, although not the same as dormant accounts, amounted to 1.5% of sales in 2008-09. That is not a high proportion, but it amounted to £78.2 million, a sum that any charity or group of charities would be delighted to have. We are talking about significant sums of money that could do much to mitigate the harm, damage and distress that gambling addictions all too often cause. We are not talking about a hill of beans; we are talking about quite a windfall—pardon the pun—for gambling charities. In 2009-10, unclaimed pool betting dividends on UK horse races totalled £944,000. Again, such dividends are not the same as dormant accounts, but the figure indicates the kinds of forgotten sums that could be put to better use rather than sitting in some account or being used on somebody’s profit line.

Of course, as with any proposed change, we will have naysayers, not least in the gambling industry, telling us that it cannot be done. They will say, “This is the intrusion of the state. Where is people’s privacy? Where are people’s rights? We cannot ensure that the money will minimise gambling-related harm.” Why not? What is the obstacle here? I know the gambling industry is an obstacle, but surely policy cannot be made due to pressure from companies with a vested interest in the status quo. Whenever someone makes a proposal on any aspect of public life, there are always a hundred reasons to say no, but in this place surely we can look to the greater good and find enough reasons to say yes.

We are not starting from scratch. A way forward can be found by implementing the findings of previous reports, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde, in the form of a voluntary scheme for high street betting shops, while requiring online and remote gambling operators to have their accounts annually audited to identify accounts that have been unused for, say, 18 months—the amount of time is up for debate. As a starting point, the operators could then provide 75% of the money in those accounts for good causes. What could possibly be wrong with that? Using money left in dormant accounts to help fund organisations working to minimise gambling-related harm would have a beautiful synchronicity that I find quite compelling, and I can honestly see no downside. All that is required is political will.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Ronnie Cowan gets two minutes at the end to try to sum up the debate, which I am sure he is looking forward to. I am looking forward to the next speech from the hon. Member for Luton North. What a great day it is to see such a stalwart of the Back Benches propelled on to the Front Bench of Her Majesty’s Opposition.