Richard Graham
Main Page: Richard Graham (Conservative - Gloucester)(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Everybody has their favourite moment in terms of nuisance calls. Mine came one new year’s day in the late 1980s, when, as duty officer at the British high commission in Nairobi, I was woken at 3 am by a gentleman on a crackling line from the Indian ocean coast assuring me that he had a vital issue on which he needed my help—he wanted to know the result of the previous day’s Liverpool-Manchester United game, on which he had a small bet with a neighbour.
This debate is about an issue that concerns Members in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in an otherwise interesting speech containing two ideas on which I share her views, had a brief go at trying to make it a party political debate, but it is not that. Nor is it only a Scottish matter, as was somewhat suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) being swiftly followed by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir); it happens in all parts of the country. I want to highlight a couple of specific issues and then outline three or four recommendations, at least one of which has already been mentioned, for the Minister to mull over during this important debate.
In November, one of my constituents, Mrs Jill Smith, wrote to me saying,
“As you know we changed our number in the summer & have listed 9 such calls since the 16th Sep. on our new number. It never stops & is worse for the elderly at home all the time.”
Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, the issues that Jill Smith raised with me after she changed her telephone number and registered with the Telephone Preference Service by no means represent an isolated case. If we quantify her problem around the country, we see that it has increased enormously. Statistics revealed by a written question to the Minister at the end of last year show that the number of calls where a recorded voice was heard increased from 1,640 in 2009 to 59,447 in 2013-14, and that the number of calls where a consumer spoke to a person increased from 1,735 to 40,231. The increases in both cases were very similar and there was an enormous, gigantic increase—a big leap forward—in the leap year of 2012-13.
The situation has got worse and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, has highlighted that regulators receive about 6,000 complaints a month. BT estimates that it receives about 50,000 calls a month to its nuisance calls bureau, including, no doubt, a large number of nuisance-like calls complaining about significant nuisance calls, so the number of nuisance calls and nuisance calls about nuisance calls becomes an increasingly circular frustration and irritation for all involved. We all agree that the worst affected are the elderly and the vulnerable. When it comes to dealing with nuisance calls, the Ofcom online guide will not necessarily help many of those worst affected, because they are not online.
During the course of my research for this debate, I discovered—I am sure many other Members found this, too—that regulatory responsibilities are split between several agencies: Ofcom is responsible for taking action on abandoned and silent calls and for maintaining the TPS; the Information Commissioner’s Office takes action against companies that breach the TPS and follows up on consumer complaints; the claims management regulator has a responsibility, because the vast majority of calls are from claims management companies; the Office of Fair Trading regulates debt management companies; the National Fraud Authority and/or the police are responsible for taking action on scams and fraudulent activities; and PhoneplayPlus is responsible for premium rate numbers.
One cannot help reaching the tentative conclusion that six different bodies—seven, if one includes the TPS—is too many. It is time for the Government to consider who is ultimately responsible for tackling the problem, which is a problem of practical politics rather than party politics. It relates to implementation and reducing the number of people who have some responsibility to a much smaller number with complete responsibility. That is my first point, having looked into the business of nuisance calls.
My second point relates to the TPS, which, in concept, is a brilliant idea. There are 19.5 million numbers registered with the TPS and it is free. It has to be a good thing, but the question is whether it is still fit for purpose. The June edition of Which? said that the TPS is failing to cut off nuisance calls—we all know that that is true: Jill Smith’s letter makes that clear—which leaves 57% of those registered with the service unhappy. The head of the TPS, John Mitchison, told The Guardian last year:
“It has eradicated lots of unwelcome calls…But the rules are complex, have loopholes, are split between agencies, tend to lag technology advances, and have been low priority.”
Numbers registered with the TPS have to wait 28 days before a breach counts, which raises a practical question: could not the TPS be updated in real time? On market research, perhaps it does not behove a politician to suggest that it should be banned—legitimate opinion pollsters have a role to play—but there is an issue.
An ICO review of the TPS was due this spring, but Ofcom has said that it will now be released this summer. The definition of summer sometimes stretches out during the course of a year, so the Minister will no doubt want to comment on when he expects the review to be delivered. It is important and I think it will lead to other opportunities, which I will touch on in a moment.
Another point is about possible conflicts of interest. BT, which is keen to block persistent offenders, is concerned about being in breach of the universal service agreement. That area could perhaps be tightened up.
I turn now to the whole business of trying to make recommendations about how things could be improved. First, we can all agree that there are too many nuisance calls and that the number ought to be reduced. We know that our constituents want them to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to the fact that some telephone companies charge for services that ban numbers from ringing us, particularly at home, which is disconcerting. I am encouraged, however, by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned a change in policy by TalkTalk, which suggests that it may lead the way to other telephone companies recognising that such services should be provided to consumers free of charge.
Secondly, on rationalisation of the regulators, there are too many bodies with different responsibilities, and there is a need to simplify and clarify the system. Thirdly, there is a particular opportunity to look at whether the TPS should be a separate organisation or effectively merged with the ICO. Fourthly, as a couple of speakers have mentioned, the ICO currently has the ability to fine offenders, but the reality is that one was fined in 2012 and three in 2013. I think that we all therefore want the threshold to be lowered. Whether the change is a legal or a practical one, nuisance callers should be fined on the basis of anxiety and stress as defined by the consumer. That gives the Minister four opportunities on which to respond.
I conclude by returning to Mrs Jill Smith. The Minister kindly replied to my letter, stating that
“we believe in greater enforcement and robust action rather than sweeping changes to the regulatory framework”.
In an answer to a written question, he promised an action plan early in the new year. Today, we are indeed early-ish in the new year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Time for action.
Richard Graham
It is indeed time for action. I very much look forward to hearing more from the Minister about a robust action plan—I know that he cares and that he wants to solve this problem—so that Mrs Jill Smith and many others like her can look forward to a new year free from nuisance calls.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on securing. It is worth noting the contributions of three hon. Members who are not present. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh West mentioned, is co-chairing the all-party group on nuisance calls. When the date of this Back-Bench debate was changed, it meant he could not be here, but he has put a huge amount of work into the issue and would have liked to be present. For good reasons, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) cannot be here for the debate’s conclusion, but she made a powerful speech as Opposition spokesman.
The presence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who was in his place earlier, was significant, because it showed that one of those rare, almost unheard of events had taken place—joined-up government. When the new Minister was appointed over Christmas, I reached out, made a nuisance call to him out of the blue and told him that I would be very pleased if he would engage with me on this issue. He certainly has engaged with me, and I look forward to working with him more, as he gets his feet under the desk. Joined-up government between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is highly important. As many hon. Members have pointed out, this is a complex regulatory landscape, involving two regulators—Ofcom, for which my Department is responsible, and the Information Commissioner’s Office, for which my right hon. Friend’s Department is responsible. It is important for our two Departments to work together.
We have heard a number of valuable contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West who opened the debate. Other contributors were the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland who is the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and, last but by no means least, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who contacted me about this issue many months ago. She requested a meeting and has maintained her interest and her campaigning work on the issue.
To put an end to any speculation from the outset—I know that hon. Members are on tenterhooks—let me say that the strategy document is ready to go. It was originally due to be published on 31 October. I discovered that if a Minister tells officials that a document will be published on a certain date, the work starts to crank up exponentially. I congratulate my officials on their excellent work over the period to hit that deadline. We were ready to publish then, but we decided to wait for the all-party group on nuisance calls to conduct its report because a lot of hard work had gone into it. We said that we would also wait for the Select Committee report, which came out at the beginning of December. Once those two reports had been published, we incorporated their findings in our strategy document, which then began its meander around Whitehall for clearance. One thing that we inherited from new Labour is the grid—the grid that sits in Downing street: the holy grid—and we are waiting for a slot in that grid, which, I assure Members, is harder than finding a slot at Heathrow. However, the document is ready to go, and I shall now reveal to Members what, broadly speaking, is in it.
We all agree that nuisance calls are a menace. I was extremely grateful to some Members for saying that they sympathised with my position and recognised that I was working hard in trying to make an impact on the problem. They did not need to say that, and it was very kind of them to do so. I was also grateful to the Members who pointed out that the direct marketing industry is valuable to the UK economy. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater—we must recognise that a legitimate industry is doing a legitimate job—but make no mistake: as is clear to all Members who have done so much work on the issue, nuisance calls are a scourge that needs to be tackled.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland observed that the number of such calls seemed to have increased significantly. That is partly because it has become easier to report them, but I suspect that it is also due to the increase in the number of calls relating to payment protection insurance, which has, in a sense, been a unique phenomenon, in that it has provided an opportunity for—perhaps—the more careless members of the industry to seek ways of making an income.
There are three categories of nuisance call. Both live, unsolicited marketing calls, when someone—a real person—rings up out of the blue, and automatic pre-recorded calls are covered by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and fall within the scope of the Information Commissioner. Silent and abandoned calls—automatic calling machines repeatedly make the calls, but when one picks up the receiver no one is there—are covered by Ofcom, which can tackle them by means of its powers to oppose the persistent misuse of networks under the Communications Act 2003. We have increased the maximum fine that Ofcom can impose for silent and abandoned calls from £50,000 to £2 million, and have given the Information Commissioner’s Office the opportunity to impose a fine of up to £500,000 for unsolicited calls and texts. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned my letter to him, in which I referred to the need for enforcement. The powers are there to make an impact, and since January 2012, Ofcom and the ICO have issued fines amounting to £2. 5 million.
We have also sought to give Ofcom and the ICO a closer working relationship. I now regularly chair a round table that brings them together, along with representatives of telecoms companies and interested Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West.
What more can we do? As a number of Members have pointed out, the legal threshold that the ICO must meet before it can issue a penalty is too high. It requires the ICO to demonstrate that a breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations would result in “substantial damage” or “substantial distress”. The ICO has argued that the threshold should be lowered, and has suggested a test involving
“nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”.
I agree with the ICO that a lower threshold would generate more effective enforcement, and we are keen to legislate this year. That will be in the strategy document. There will have to be consultation on it, because it will require legislation.
Mr Vaizey
I do not know whether it is on the grid, but the announcement is governed by Downing street, and the legislation is governed by the Leader of the House.
In order to improve the working relationship between Ofcom and the ICO we also want to make it possible for Ofcom to share the data it has with the ICO, which is not possible at the moment. We will introduce a statutory instrument. That order will be brought into force by the beginning of April. We will look at consent. That will be in the strategy document as well. Members have rightly pointed out that there is frustration with the Telephone Preference Service but again the frustration partly arises from the fact that consumers may not realise they are giving consent and therefore effectively allowing the marketer to override the TPS.
The PECR states that a marketing call cannot be made to a consumer who has registered with the TPS unless consent has been given. The ICO has updated its guidance on this issue, but I accept there is scope for greater clarity to help consumers make informed decisions. We are considering the scope for action in this area and once we have published the strategy document we will launch a hands-on consultation working with consumer groups, particularly Which?, which has been excellent in the area of nuisance calls, and with our regulators to look at a practical way forward. Incredibly complicated regulations could inadvertently be brought in were we to introduce detailed regulations about when informed consent is given. If we are to change the regulations, it is important that we get them absolutely right and that they are clear and not confusing.
Many Members have made the point that there is no silver bullet and I thought the Select Committee report was excellent on that. For example it is easy to say we should just merge the regulators, but when we look into the issues, we see the situation is much more complicated than that and we are much more likely to make more rapid progress by simply making the regulators work together.
In a complex and fast-moving environment, it is also important that we look at what measures we can take without legislation. With developments in telecoms technology, it is now easier and cheaper than ever before to make calls. That is good news for consumers, but rogue companies can also utilise the same technology to circumvent regulation and bombard us with unsolicited calls and texts. We therefore need to look at not just legal measures, but industry collaboration, technical standards, and support from telecoms providers.
We also want improved information and guidance for consumers, to enable them to register complaints on regulators’ websites more easily and also access information about steps they can take to deal with nuisance calls. This information is available, and the guides have been viewed more than a quarter of a million—or perhaps I should say 250,000, as I think that is the new parliamentary expression pioneered by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—times and are clearly proving to be a valuable tool. Additionally, as a result of our engagement with the consumer organisation Which? it has now developed a user-friendly page on its website whereby consumers are automatically directed to the right place to access information as well as to make complaints. In addition to issuing fines, the ICO “names and shames” persistent offenders on its website so that consumers are better informed about those who break the law.
I mentioned earlier the upswing in the number of nuisance calls. I think that has been generated by the payment protection insurance sector. There is an alphabet soup of regulators with a role in this area, and that sector is regulated by the claims management regulation unit. Through our engagement with it, it has put more resources into tackling the problem of unsolicited calls and text messages to ensure that it can move more quickly to investigate and take enforcement action. It is working actively with the ICO, Ofcom and other relevant bodies to detect and punish those involved. I welcome the action it has taken and continues to take against claims management companies that fail to comply with the rules. From June of last year it started to publish the names of companies under investigation or subject to recent enforcement action. Between July and September 2013, it conducted 41 audits, issued 25 warnings, commenced 11 investigations, cancelled 109 licences and visited 407 claims management companies.
When introducing measures it is important that Government start to think about what impact they might have on nuisance calls. For example, the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases appears to have had the knock-on effect of reducing the volume of marketing calls to potential clients, because claims management companies can no longer receive a fee for referring client details. The claims management regulation unit is actively policing the ban on referral fees, in addition to the ban on claims management companies offering financial rewards.