Finance Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Redwood
The idea is to provide a better-quality service, applying modern technology and techniques to serve those who need the scheme. I am sure that the Minister will be interested in any detailed criticisms the hon. Gentleman may have. This Government have spent a lot of our public money on dealing with abuse on the tax side, because they rightly believe that we should be fair, crack down on tax abuse and ensure that people do not cheat the welfare system. Neither is a good thing to do. If we want a sensible financial balance, we should surely be fair to both sides by ensuring that we are not cheated out of public money and that we are not short-changed by people who break the law on tax.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman was waxing lyrical about corporation tax earlier. Of course, private finance initiatives—with companies that Members on both sides of the House have concerns about—have been beneficiaries of the Government’s changes to corporation tax. Those companies benefit from the lower corporation tax espoused by the right hon. Gentleman, even though they signed contracts with the Government to pay a higher rate of corporation tax that was part of the value-for-money assessment for those contracts. If he wants to get the money owed to the public sector, does he recognise that corporation tax may need to be amended in certain ways and with some companies to reflect that?
John Redwood
The hon. Lady is very brave to mention PFI because that was a failed experiment by the Labour Government, who got through an awful lot of public money needlessly by not doing good deals with the private sector and not understanding that they had to be more careful in the kinds of contract they signed.
Stella Creasy
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about PFI. I would like to hear him talk about Private Finance 2, which is this Government’s proposal, including £23 billion of infrastructure investment that will be done under the same contracts, and which therefore faces the same challenges. Many Labour Members recognise the need to deal with PFI. I would hope to hear the right hon. Gentleman—a man who has been so proud of the role of corporation tax—deal with them equally rather than avoid the question. I am sure that his constituents would like that too.
John Redwood
I did not avoid the question at all. I pointed out that most PFI contracts were signed under the Labour Government. When I was a Secretary of State, I remember being offered a PFI route to financing a new hospital. I looked at the numbers and did not think they worked, so I said, “I’d rather finance it in the normal way by public borrowing because that would clearly be cheaper and give us more control.” That was a bit of a surprise to my officials but they quite liked the advice I gave them on the subject. It is the job of a Minister to understand these things, but a lot of Labour Ministers did not understand the contracts they were signing, and those contracts had weaknesses. If the hon. Lady has problems with contracts that Ministers are currently signing, it is her job as an Opposition MP—she will not be shy about doing this—to give chapter and verse. She has not been specific, but we do not have time to turn this into a debate about individual contracts. I am sure that my ministerial friends, particularly in the Treasury spending department, would be very interested to hear where she thinks they have gone wrong. However. we probably need to move on.
Stella Creasy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am pleased to hear his concerns. I note his intention to increase public sector borrowing. I repeat that the Government are talking about £23 billion of infrastructure spending financed by this Bill. They are looking at PF2, which is “exactly the same” as PFI. They are not my words, but those of the National Audit Office. Will he join me in supporting amendments to the Bill to ensure that those companies pay their fair share of tax and the public sector gets the money it deserves?
John Redwood
I have no evidence that makes me believe they will not pay their fair share of tax. I am sure that my ministerial friends have heard the hon. Lady’s point and will look carefully at the issue. It is good that a lot of our future infrastructure programme will be privately financed, but I always apply a simple test. If the thing is going to be privately financed, I want to ensure that the private sector is bearing significant risk in return for the reward it wants to earn. I do not like phoney PFIs, whereby the private sector cajoles the public sector into taking all or most of the risk while giving a higher reward than one would get on a normal Government bond in order for the contract to be signed. There were quite a lot of those under the Labour Government and the taxpayer is much the poorer as a result. It is part of the reason that we did not get the gains in public sector productivity that we would like to achieve. If we do not discipline the big investment spend, we do not drive forward the productivity gains that we clearly need to make across a large public sector.
In conclusion, the best way to raise the extra money we need to pay wages and improve public services—an aim that is shared across the Chamber, contrary to Labour’s belief—is to drive further growth in the economy so that more people are in jobs to pay tax, and so that more companies are doing things here and making profits here on which they can pay tax. We need a series of tax rates that are not too complicated and that are low enough to be sensible so that we are internationally competitive. Then individuals and companies will have every incentive to do more, invest more, work harder and work smarter in order to carry the economy forward. I trust that is what my hon. and right hon. Friends will be doing.
I do have some worries about the length of modern Finance Bills. It is useful to have another doorstop, but it is a bit of a barrier to our reading every page and giving it the credit that it undoubtedly deserves. It would be good to see whether we could have a period of fewer and simpler taxes so that we do not need quite so much language in Finance Bills. It would also certainly be good to look at what one can learn from the success of raising more revenue from richer income tax earners by going from 50% to 45% and getting more revenue out of companies by going from 28% to 19%. We could apply that principle more generally to other taxes because we would then have a win-win situation. We would have more money for our public services, more economic growth, more people in jobs and more people keeping more of the money they earn. That might make for happier constituents, and that is my main aim in being here.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not think that it would be out of order for me to make some brief remarks about something other than the Finance Bill, given that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson spent 10 minutes talking about yesterday and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North spent quite some time doing the same.
Let me move on to finance and the essential capability of the Bill, which is, of course, to raise revenue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about that, and of course the central point is about balancing the public finances. I shall not talk about that at length because I was fortunate enough to secure a Westminster Hall debate on the subject which, much like today’s, was well attended, with more than 20 Conservative colleagues and only one Opposition Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). To be fair to him, he spoke extremely well, but he was the only Opposition Back-Bench Member to speak in that debate, which demonstrated that when it comes to balancing the public finances, Opposition MPs are very good at spending money, but not so good at thinking of ways of balancing the books and ensuring that we have sound public finances. That is important because the sound public finances that the Bill helps to put in place will ensure that the country continues to grow and that we can continue to deliver pay rises for people across the country.
Stella Creasy
I want to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge. I am sure that he is proud that the previous Government, of which he was part, extended capital gains tax to residential property sales for non-domiciles, so will he join me in suggesting that we close the loophole on commercial property sales? There is one idea that could raise some money for investment in this country.
Mr Harper
I am very pleased that the measures in this Bill, which Opposition Front Benchers seem so unwilling to support, raise something like £1.6 billion—I am sure that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—on top of the £1 billion we have raised from non-doms. Put together, that is £2.6 billion, which is more than the Labour party raised in all the time it was in government. If the hon. Lady compares Labour’s record in government with ours, she will see that we have been much more effective in raising taxes from non-doms to spend on our public services than her Government ever was.
Wes Streeting
Imagine lacking both!
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we need more international co-operation if we are to curb the excesses of multinational corporations’ power. Does he therefore share my sadness that we are currently driving a coach and horses through the most sophisticated political and economic alliance in the history of the world—the European Union—which gives us that global power and the leadership to tackle those global excesses?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on a wonderful maiden speech. He paints a fantastic picture of a part of the country that I have yet to visit and that clearly has many delights to try, although, on his advice, I will pass on the home-made scones, if I may.
May I offer the hon. Gentleman some advice, as somebody who has been here all of seven years? He will find watching “Monty Python” a very useful guide to what goes on in Parliament. Sometimes this Chamber can feel like the argument clinic, where some people have been paid to argue. The Brexit Secretary also appears to be taking his lead from the Spanish inquisition in his approach to the negotiations, and he is equally effective. Ultimately, Brexit is really like the big Monty Python foot, slamming down on everything we do in the Chamber in this Parliament.
That is why this Finance Bill is so important and why I look forward to the many hours we will spend debating it in Committee. It is vital that we do not let Brexit deter us from dealing with some of the many problems we have in our country. The test we must therefore set for all proposed legislation in this House is, does it progress the needs of our communities and our country? I have to say that I find this Bill wanting in many different ways. The Government seem to have an economic plan based on personal debt, not UK productivity.
This week, I heard the Chancellor desperate for ideas. I want to be a helpful contributor to this House and to our debates, so in my speech today I shall set out for Ministers—I hope they will listen to some of our ideas—some suggestions on how we could get this country on to a sound economic footing. One of the Ministers is a former sparring partner of mine on the Public Accounts Committee, so he will know my personal commitment to value for money for the British public.
However, we first need to understand the context in which the Finance Bill is proposed—how we got to this position, why the legislation represents so many missed opportunities and why my colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), was right to talk about people feeling the squeeze. We know that for many of our constituents there is too much month at the end of the money. Therefore, when we are looking at tax measures, we are looking at how we might help our constituents, and we have to ask first about those who will bear the brunt of a Government who do not do things to tackle the impact on their lives of rising inflation, stagnant wages, low productivity and, indeed, that Brexit Monty Python foot.
Our country has an eye-watering £200 billion of personal debt. In every single legislative measure we make we must ask what we are doing to reduce that debt, because the consequences for so many are so great. My concern is that that debt is so high because the Government are balancing the books out of the pockets of our constituents.
In 2010, I sat on the Opposition Benches—a new MP, like the hon. Member for Moray—and listened to a Chancellor promise that the deficit would be eliminated. In 2016, I read the note from the Office for Budget Responsibility that recognised that the Government had broken their own deficit rule. The hon. Member for Moray talked about being a referee. We are not even on yellow cards with this Government as regards economic competency—it is a straight red card, as far as I am concerned.
Previous Chancellors have claimed time and again that they would get a grip on the public finances. Time and again, they have moved the goalposts. They changed the targets in 2014 to 2017 for eliminating the debt. In 2015, they changed the target to running a surplus in normal times by 2020-21. Then, in 2016, they changed the target again to reduce net borrowing to below 2%. Now, in the Tory manifesto, it has changed to 2026, and we are hearing that in the autumn Budget it could be changed to 2027. Last year we borrowed £52 billion, and it is expected that this year we will borrow another £60 billion. So forgive me, but I will not take any lectures from Government Members about fiscal responsibility. If, in these seven years, you had been on a business board and the finance director had come to you every single year, as Conservative Chancellors have, asking for more money because yet again they have not got to grips with how they were spending it, you would sack them. That is certainly what I hope the British public will do.
At the same time as we are borrowing more and failing to tackle the debt, our productivity is worse. I agree with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is sadly no longer in his seat, that this is a challenge we cannot ignore, whatever is going on in Europe. A typical French person need only work Monday to Thursday compared with a typical Brit, and it is the same for Germany, which has a 29% higher GDP per hour than the UK. We have seen a lost decade of productivity in this country, and our communities and businesses are paying, so that we are now in an extraordinary position where it is more expensive than ever before to employ somebody, despite the squeeze on wages. Stagflation is upon us. Inflation is up by 12% since 2010, but wages are down by 6%. It is little wonder that so many in our communities are borrowing.
When we come to legislate on income tax or on the increasing numbers of people who are self-employed—the small business owners whom we all cherish in our communities—let us ask what we can do to help them. Let us not be blind to these challenges, or to the inequality that is stubborn in our country. During this time, the people who benefit from many of the measures in such legislation have done rather well. In 2000, FTSE 100 chief executives were paid, on average, £1.4 million a year. Now, it is £4.5 million—a 220% increase. That is not market forces, but it shows a failure by us as a country to invest in people. Our productivity reveals that challenge, and the personal debt of our communities is paying for it.
Ministers may ask what I would do to raise money—we have heard that question before—so let me give them some examples of things that we could put into this Bill. We could, for example, look at clause 16 on capital gains tax. Earlier I asked Government Members whether they might join me on this. After all, there has been much talk about tackling the issues of non-doms. Indeed, the previous Chancellor changed the legislation to put capital gains tax on to residential property sales, but now there is a loophole around commercial property sales. Let me reassure Government Members that if they choose to follow our advice on this matter, it has been tackled in the United States, in Canada and in Australia. It is not crazy economics but sensible planning.
We could apply the same rate of tax on carried interest to hedge fund managers. Why are they not paying the same rates of income tax as the cleaners who clean their offices—still, on this Government’s watch, seven years on? We could change business property relief, too often used to avoid inheritance tax, restricting it to small businesses and perhaps bringing in a cap of, say, £5 million, so that people do not use that to avoid taxation. We could deal with commercial real estate in cases where people are avoiding the 5% stamp duty by putting it into companies. Those are all things that could be put into clause 16 to raise money and to be fair about who is paying all the taxes that are avoided.
Clause 69 talks about gathering information. We should be dealing with the information about the debts that our communities are based around. Forty-one per cent. of consumer debt is on credit cards. Hon. Members should talk to the people in their communities who are now called zombie debtors, paying the interest but not the capital on the money that they owe. They are borrowing to stay afloat because their wages have not risen, and they are borrowing for basics—to put food on their table, to keep a roof above their head, and to put petrol in their car to get to their jobs where they are not getting the pay rise that they deserve. Nothing in this Bill will tackle the squeeze on them from that debt or help the third of people who are now in debt because they are behind on credit card repayments. Clause 69 could introduce an FCA consultation, as despite the fact it is looking at credit card debt it is not considering the lessons that Ministers could learn from the cap on high-cost credit companies. When some people are paying £2.50 for every £1 they are borrowing in this way to stay afloat, it is time to extend the cap on high-cost credit and payday loans to credit card companies. We could do that in this Bill; we could certainly gather the information on the impact it would have.
We could also look at the creditors we as a country owe. Members on both sides of the House will know of my interest in private finance initiatives and my recognition that Governments of all colours have used them and continue to use them. I note that Ministers have talked about the £23 billion they wish to invest in infrastructure and I am sad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is not in the Chamber given the concern we share about whether private finance is the best way to do that. Of the additional money put into the NHS in the spending review, 22% will leach out to PFI companies as profit, and every constituency in this country has one of these deals.
Let me give an example of the kind of money we are talking about. The company that owns University College Hospital in London has made pre-tax profits of £190 million out of the £735 million that we as taxpayers have paid it. That is enough money to build another hospital outright. This country now owes £300 billion in PFI debts on projects that should have cost £55 billion. Nobody in this House can be smug about PFI. When PF2 is as expensive and the preferred model for how the Government intend to invest in infrastructure, Members on both sides should be asking whether their communities can avoid such contracts.
With eight companies owning 92% of the equity stakes in the hospital sector, there is certainly more work to be done to look into them. Indeed, the Bill gives an exemption to the very companies for the interest that they pay on shares. These companies signed deals with the public sector to pay a certain rate of corporation tax and to commit to paying UK taxes. Indeed, the value for money assessments of the deals was predicated on that, and I note that the Government have not updated the value for money deal to take account of this information from 2013, despite promising more than four years ago that they would.
Schedule 10 to the Bill allows those companies to claim back the interest without the cap. How can we, as a society, give these companies more money through that investment relief as we see our public sector struggling and that money being leached out of it? Surely we should change that, and I hope that Members from all parties will listen and support changes to proposed new section 439.
While Brexit is a Monty Python foot, for many of our small businesses VAT is their biggest compliance issue. Many of them trade in Europe and therefore have to reclaim VAT from other countries. The clock is ticking for us to leave the European Union and the lack of information in this legislation about how companies will manage VAT post-Brexit is alarming. In particular, articles 170 and 171 of the Council of Ministers’ 2006 directive—I hope that the Minister is writing this down—are matched by section 39 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That allows companies in Britain to seamlessly reclaim VAT through intra-EU legislation. Those options will be gone for our companies when we leave the European Union unless we have alternative arrangements, so when the Government are making legislation through part 4 of the Bill on VAT, the lack of any correlation between the 14th directive and the importance of aligning those measures so that businesses have a seamless transition and can be confident that they can manage their VAT if they trade with other countries is very frightening.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady’s point about VAT and the arrangements that may or may not pertain when we leave the European Union will be dealt with in the upcoming customs and excise Bill.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for that point, but obviously the Bill is about Making Tax Digital and the intra-EU process is digitised. That is what makes it so seamless for so many companies. When we are making legislation about making VAT a digital entity and working online, surely we should be joining these things up to make it as easy as possible for our constituents who have to deal with these issues, rather than separating it out. My point is simply that this Bill is now coming towards the House at the same time as those negotiations are happening. Our constituents deserve clarity on how these things are going to work together.
That applies particularly to our self-employed constituents. Clause 64 could help many of them who have to deal with the errors relating to their welfare entitlement and their tax entitlement. We know that 18% of self-employed people get tax credits, compared with 10% of people who are employed, yet there is nothing in the Bill to help them. I am sure that my colleague—another gentleman from the SNP, whose constituency is I am sure as beautiful as Moray but unfortunately I have forgotten what it is—would agree that we could help those people through this legislation by joining up the way in which the state works with self-employed people. Issues such as how they deal with VAT, with universal credit and with insurance will all be covered in the Bill, but there is an absence of ideas from the Government on how to help those people.
The Government also seem to be overlooking some of the poorest people in our society. I know this because, 18 months ago, I took part in the consultation on tips, gratuities and service charges—the disguised remuneration that the Government are so concerned about—yet, 18 months on, we are no further forward on finding out what the Government are going to do to prevent some of the poorest workers in our retail industries from being ripped off by employers who dip into their tips and use them to prop up their businesses. I have given examples of this to the Treasury and to HMRC, and these issues could have been dealt with in this Bill, but there is nothing there. There is nothing in the Bill to protect workers who get their tips through an electronic system or to ensure that their employers are not taking a surcharge from them. There is nothing in the legislation that even gives a legal right to a payslip—a very basic piece of information that would help to stop those people being exploited.
Those 10 ideas reflect the things we could have done, through this Bill, to help the poorest hard-working people in our communities who will be stamped on by that Brexit “Monty Python” foot. I look at the gaps in the Bill and at the ease with which non-doms will slip through the loopholes, and I see a Government who are not only running out of ideas but running out of road on Brexit. God willing, with the work that we will do, they will also run out of time soon.
Economy and Jobs
Stella Creasy Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I am always happy to go to Southend, but the story that my hon. Friend tells is being repeated up and down the country in constituencies represented by Members on both sides of the House.
The shadow Chancellor complains that growth has not benefited the less well-off. That was at the core of his argument today, but he is wrong. The basic state pension is up by £1,250 a year. Under a Conservative Government, income inequality is at a 30-year low. The poorest households in the UK have seen their wages rise more since 2010 than in any other country in the G7 and, thanks to the Conservative national living wage, those in full-time work on the minimum wage have seen their pay boosted by £1,400 a year. He presents our economic success as a bubble that benefits only London and the south-east, but he is wrong again. Today the economy is growing fastest in the north-west, wages are rising fastest in the west midlands, productivity is growing fastest in Northern Ireland, and unemployment is falling fastest in Scotland. That is a good news story across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, benefiting all the regions and all the nations.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The figure of £1,400 is what Northern Irish women were having to spend to get an abortion here in England, so it is welcome that the Government are now saying that they will correct this injustice. However, the Chancellor will know, as everyone knows, that the devil will be in the detail. Will he therefore make a commitment on behalf of the Government to meet me and representatives of organisations such as Marie Stopes, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and the London Irish Abortion Campaign to look at how we can turn this into a reality, so that those women in Northern Ireland who have finally had their voices heard today can use these services as soon as possible?
Mr Hammond
I say to the hon. Lady: please read the letter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has sent out. We will be giving additional funding to her Department so that she can make a grant to the external organisations that will provide those services. I think that the hon. Lady will be satisfied when she has read the letter and understood the details. If she is not, I will be happy to meet her.
Stella Creasy
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to all the Members who have supported the rights of Northern Irish women to have equal access to abortion. I am delighted by today’s announcement from the Government and satisfied by the commitments that I have had from the Minister responsible to work with the sector. On that basis, I am happy not to move the amendment today. Let us send a message to women everywhere that in this Parliament their voices will be heard and their rights upheld.
Mr Speaker
We come next to amendment (g).
Amendment proposed: at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech does not rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal, guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations, set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business, set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market, set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations, and include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens.”—(Mr Umunna.)
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 33), That the amendment be made.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Stella Creasy ExcerptsMonday 12th December 2016
(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2016 - (12 Dec 2016)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It will come as no surprise to many people in this House that I am here in full support of my Co-op party colleagues on this matter, and in full support of the vital importance of supporting our credit unions because of the debt tsunami that is coming our way as a nation. Some people may think that it is one of my greatest hits to talk about personal debt and the scourge of the high-cost lenders. The credit unions have always been very much part of the answer to this, and I support amendment 2 on that basis. It is absolutely critical, with the debt tsunami that is coming towards us, that we act to support the credit union movement as a vital component of helping people.
For too many people in our nation, debt is a part of life. There is simply too much month for their money. That has been the case for many years, but the problems are becoming endemic, to the extent that people may not even realise the level of debt that they have. For other people, it may be all too clear: two out of five people are very worried about their level of personal debt. Let me be clear that we are talking about unsecured personal debt. These are not people who are just worrying about their mortgages; these are people who are worrying about the day-to-day cost of everyday living.
For 54% of people who are struggling, the cost of food is the problem—literally, the cost of putting food on the table as well as keeping a roof over their heads and those of their families. For 30% of people, the problem is the cost of energy. Those people will look at the weather forecast fearfully as the temperature drops, knowing that they simply cannot afford to put money in the meter to keep their families warm. Increasingly, people are in debt because of their debt: 22% of people are struggling because of credit card repayment debt.
That is everyday Britain. That is the kind of country we have become—a country where debt is so commonplace that people are not just waving but drowning in it. It is the responsibility of all of us to act. We must not simply give people debt advice, or shrug our shoulders and see this as part of how our economy works. We must ask whether there are things we can do to help people to manage their debts.
The debt tsunami will only become worse as we head into 2017. We all recognise that inflation is likely to rise from 1% to possibly 4%, some experts suggest. The cost of food and basic goods such as energy is going to get higher, not lower. So many people’s wages have been frozen for so many years that in 2017 the gap between the start of the month and the end of the month will feel very large. That is why we have to be pragmatic. Pragmatism is about offering people good options for managing what little money they have, and that is where the credit union movement comes into its own. When the Government want to encourage saving, it is absolutely vital that instead of excluding the credit union movement, they embrace it and the benefits that it can offer. A quarter of people in this country have no savings at all, so we need to ask ourselves which movement always has its doors open to every citizen, and how we can help it to bridge that gap. That means looking to the credit union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has made an admirable case for helping our credit union movement and its work. At the risk of repeating what has been said, I want to echo his words and say that we can do so much more. This scheme and the involvement of credit unions are the start, not the end, of that conversation. My own credit union struggled for many years to get on to the high street in Walthamstow, but what a difference that has made. My credit union struggled for many years to get into workplaces and to work with people, but what a difference doing so can make.
Councils around the country, such as Southampton, are working to give people access to a credit union as savers, in return for helping those who would otherwise have gone—let us say it—to a payday lender to get the money that they needed. That sort of work enables us to link communities together. It is crucial that we see credit unions as being not just about borrowing, but about saving. We must recognise that saving enables us to support wider social objectives in a local community.
That is why this omission must be corrected and why Co-operative MPs are standing here tonight to try to get the Government to think again about excluding credit unions from the Help to Save scheme. Instead, we ask the Government to embrace credit unions by accepting the amendment. I join my hon. Friend in saying that if we do not get support from the Government for this change, we will seek to divide the House.
We want to send a message. We know that people will have to borrow. When 2017 looks as dire as it does, with inflation rising, people’s wages still stalling and the cost of living continuing to rise, we have to make sure that people have sensible borrowing options. They also need to have sensible saving options, and the credit union movement is the answer. It is the solution for people who might not have gone anywhere else. If we can get them into a credit union, we can start dealing with their debts and getting them to save.
This is a critical time for our country’s debt portfolio. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, a debt tsunami is heading our way. Let us not turn our backs on it. Let us be sensible about what we can do to help, and let us make credit unions part of the solution.
Jane Ellison
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for what she is saying. Our concern is that savings are a critical part of credit unions’ ability to deliver the services that they provide. Her argument does not preclude the amendment that Co-op MPs have tabled. The conversations that she is talking about could then happen. There has been no suggestion that there would be any legislative bar. She is making the case for accepting the amendment in saying that it is exactly what she wants to do in future.
Private Finance 2/Private Finance Initiative
Stella Creasy Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Most MPs can show in their constituencies where there are rotting floors, outdated buildings and potholes. Some may even have made a website about it, but the truth is that this is no laughing matter. We know that our schools in this country are falling apart, and that investment in our education buildings is 18% lower in 2014 than it was in 2009. Britain is now ranked 24th by the World Economic Forum for the quality of its infrastructure, down from 19th in 2006, and we cannot see this getting any better. Indeed, spending on infrastructure has nose-dived since Brexit.
Whatever some may say about fixing these problems, all of it has to be paid for, and Governments of all persuasions, including the previous Labour Government as well as the current Government, have used private finance to build. It is the equivalent of getting a mortgage or even remortgaging our home to pay for a new roof or an extension. Crucially in these deficit-denying times, it is seductive not only because it spreads payments for new schools, hospitals and stations and their management over decades or more, but because it keeps them off the books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to a report of 2014, in Northern Ireland there were some 39 PFI projects with a staggering total cost of £7.3 billion for the maintenance and so forth. Does the hon. Lady agree that any further PFI must be an absolute last resort and indeed should only be permissible in cases of extreme need?
Stella Creasy
I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that there may be many alternatives to PFI, because the question for us is: at what cost have we engaged in this borrowing? We now pay £10 billion a year in PFI repayments, equating to £3,400 for every man, woman and child in Britain. These projects are worth £57 billion, but we are committed to paying back £232 billion by 2050.
It is clear that PFI has addressed some of the project management issues we had in the public sector that made it so bad at building. As the National Audit Office highlights, it has dramatically cut late delivery of projects and overspending on buildings, but as the Treasury Committee points out, it is “sub-optimal value for money”.
One hospital was charged £52,000 to demolish a £750 shelter for smokers, and a school had to pay £302 for a plug socket to be replaced, five times the cost of the equipment it wanted to plug into it. In my constituency of Walthamstow, we have seen first-hand the damage done. My local hospital, Whipps Cross, is part of the Barts health foundation, which has the largest UK PFI deal, at £1.1 billion. By 2049 the amount paid back will be £7 billion. Last year alone the trust shelled out £148 million, equivalent to the salaries of 6,000 nurses, of which half was the interest paid on the loan. Its deficit of £90 million has led managers to downgrade nursing posts. It is little wonder the Care Quality Commission placed my local hospital into special measures as the quality of care declined.
The Minister will, I have no doubt, say his Government have reviewed PFI and made cuts to the costs, renegotiating to buy fewer lightbulbs and to do less cleaning, saving us a whole £1.6 billion out of about £220 billion, but as the NAO has pointed out, no one has really considered whether private finance itself is value for money.
Tonight I want to ask three simple questions: whether the terms of PFI—the rates we pay to borrow this way—are the best we as taxpayers can get to build schools and hospitals; whether even now we can save money on the costly deals that have been signed by Governments of all persuasions, and which are draining our public services of much-needed money; and above all whether the Government are doing enough to secure the competition for our business as taxpayers.
Of course it is hard to answer those questions without the data on what we are paying. I know that the Government do not have those data, because I have asked. I tried asking all the hospitals around the country what rate they were paying, because on 8 February this year Treasury Ministers told me that they do not hold those data centrally. Most NHS trusts refused to disclose the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive, but those that did were very revealing. Their data showed that, in December 1994 under John Major’s Government, two PFIs in Durham—one for the Dryburn district hospital and one for the Bishop Auckland general hospital—had rates of return of 15% and 18% respectively. In comparison, the 10-year gilt rate was just over 8% at the time. In December 2002, the Crosshouse maternity hospital in Kilmarnock was rated at 16%, while a month later Edmonton acute services were rated at 14%. The gilt rate was 4.6% at that time. In March 2010, the Leeds Wellbeing Centre offered a return of 14% and the Liverpool University hospital redevelopment offered 11%. The long-term gilt rate was then 4.2%.
Some people will argue that we cannot make a direct comparison with gilt rates, so let me flag up the fact that equity returns on the stock market have averaged between 5% and 6% per annum over the past 30 years. It is therefore clear that PFI investors got a great rate, and that was no accident. Critically, research from Edinburgh University shows that these rates do not vary as other premiums do in our financial markets, and that they stay well above the cost of other forms of funding. So public bodies might know full well that the premiums are high, but if that is the return that the market expects for managing the projects and there is no alternative, there is not much they can do without the Government’s help.
I should also point out that those are the rates for when the contracts were signed. As we now know, much profit has been made by selling the debts on. The South London Healthcare NHS Trust, which collapsed, had two large PFI contracts, one of which was offering investors annual returns of 71%. Most PFI contracts were let on an expectation of an already high rate of return of 15% to 17%, but refinancing has seen some returns to investors rise to over 70%.
In 2007, a new standard contract clause was created to allow authorities to request this financial information in order to track the returns that investors were creating. However, there is little evidence that the clause has been used or even that the Government have promoted it, so it is hard for us to see just how much taxpayers’ money is being recycled into higher payments for investment funds rather than into infrastructure for the UK. Again, no central database exists.
We might not know what we are paying, but we do know who we are paying, and it is often the same companies, with 45% of projects funded by the same people. Firms such as Dalmore Capital, Semperian, Kajima, Innisfree and Barclays crop up time and again, and they often invest together too. This dominance by a small group of companies matters because this Government are continuing to use their services in their proposed replacement for PFI, known as PF2. PF2 separates out the service element—the building management—from the capital, which involves the building of the project. So far, so good. Those lightbulbs might be replaced after all, if their cost is not connected to the cost of building the schools.
However, PF2 is supposed to attract more long-term investors by increasing the requirement for equity—the most expensive bit of the deal—potentially making it even more expensive to the public purse than PFI. It also expects us as taxpayers to take on more—not enough to be in charge of the project, but more to cover the cost. So it is not that different from PFI. It is still about us borrowing money from private companies to build things, at rates that are not transparent or competitive with the alternative sources of finance that we could raise.
Are there better ways to borrow to build? Certainly the calculations used by the Government in the Green Book to compare the cost of these deals with public spending have not made that question easier to answer. They set the value of public sector borrowing at 3.5% real and 6 % nominal since 2003, despite the cost of public borrowing being well below that for over a decade. The Treasury Select Committee has suggested that the Government review the Green Book, but it is not clear that the Government have heard that message. Will the Minister tell us whether PF2 is using the same calculations as PFI, at the very time when the cost of borrowing to the public sector is even lower? The Green Book also includes the shadow price of tax—the money that private companies will pay in tax in the UK as a result of getting this business. That money is set against the cost of borrowing from those companies to decide whether the deal is better than using public money to fund a project.
The lack of information about such projects means that the Government are simply unable to verify whether the tax presumptions are accurate. The NAO suggests not. The companies themselves continue to be sited overseas. Innisfree and Palio Partners are sited in Guernsey, and Semperian is registered in Jersey. PF2 will do nothing to tackle that or to stop the resale of shares in such deals, which make more money by taking advantage of the fact that Governments do not default. What does the Minister make of the bosses of the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, who admitted that they could not stop Carillion, investors in the PF2 for the Midland Metropolitan hospital, from selling on its equity investment to generate the kind of profits that we saw under PFI?
At a time when huge spending cuts are being threatened and when the NHS faces a financial shortfall of £20 billion by 2020 alone, to continue to pay inflated rates to rich investors is to continue to ignore the problems. A quarter of single-tier and county councils now spend the equivalent of 10% of their revenue on debt servicing. The answer to the first question is no; private deals are not always a good deal. We therefore need to answer a second question: if we cannot get out of them, can we renegotiate? Can we consolidate to reduce the repayments and put the savings back into front-line services? To date, sadly only Northumbria NHS Trust has done that and only at great expense to the council and with minimal savings. Imagine the savings that could have been achieved had the Government negotiated a group of the contracts with these companies at the same time. The savings in interest could be paying down debt or paying nurses and teachers properly.
We then face our final question: why are we borrowing only from these companies? Why are more companies not competing for our business as taxpayers? In the past few years, this Government have been making it harder for local government to pay down its debts. The Public Works Loan Board could use the Government’s financial strength as a borrower to secure much lower rates and then pass them on to public bodies. Instead, they changed the early repayment terms in 2007. In 2010, changes were made to loans to make it harder, not easier, for local councils to borrow efficiently.
If that does not excite Ministers, perhaps they will support an alternative in the shape of the new municipal bond agency created by local councils. The agency seeks to lend at margins of between 0.6% and 1% over the underlying Government funding rate. Currently, if a council wants to borrow money for 30 years from the Public Works Loan Board, it will charge just over 2%. In contrast to the complexity of PFI or PF2, municipal bonds are simple and transparent. Bonds are issued to the market to raise funds and local government lending is at a fixed rate.
The Government could make pensions funds more likely to invest in partnerships with Government by being more transparent about the deals and the returns to be made. The current Pensions Infrastructure Platform has led to such companies buying old PFI debt, but that can change. The Manchester and London local government pension funds have recently acted together to invest in windfarms and biomass, so there is clearly a market. With Government support, that could be the basis for a UK sovereign wealth fund—the people’s money used for the people’s projects. The sad truth, however, is that no such innovations are coming from this House or the Treasury, so why are we throwing good money after bad trying to make private finance initiatives work? With a Prime Minister who has pledged to put infrastructure investment at the heart of post-Brexit economy, Britain cannot afford to keep making expensive mistakes.
I have five simple questions for the Minister. First, will he commit to publishing the rates at which public agencies are borrowing so we can have greater transparency of the costs incurred to the taxpayer and so that we can check whether, as many fear, PF2 will be more expensive than PFI? When will the Government publish the equity returns data, promised since last year, on the PF2 deals? Secondly, is the minister not perturbed by the relationships between a small group of institutional investors in these deals and the lack of competition for taxpayers’ business? If so, will he ask the Competition and Markets Authority, which acts on the behalf of consumers—as taxpayers, we are consumers—to review the sector and explore whether barriers to new entrants exist? Thirdly, will the Government help public bodies saddled with PFI and PF2 contracts to renegotiate debts and get the costs down to save money for front-line services? Fourthly, will the Government rewrite the Green Book to reflect the real costs and benefits of public borrowing versus private borrowing? Fifthly, what does he make of the new Eurostat rules published in March that consider the equity stakes that the Government intend us to take out under PF2 to be direct financing, meaning that they should be on the books? Does that not undermine the point of PF2 in the first place?
Finally, how will the Minister stop money simply going overseas into tax havens and into higher profits for private companies, not public services for the people? As things stand, 46 schools, and many more hospitals, will be built using £700 million of that PF2 control total, at a time when borrowing is at an exceptionally low cost for government. Do not take my word for that. Instead, take the word of Leo Quinn, the chief executive of Balfour Beatty, who recently said that “money is effectively free”. There is no excuse not to act, to tackle the costs of existing PFI contracts and the lack of competition for our business as taxpayers, so that we can really get value for money and so that instead of injecting our cash into profits for private companies overseas, we can inject our money into the kind of projects that will get Britain’s economy and Britain’s people back into business.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing this debate. How we go about funding the infrastructure this country needs is a topic of huge importance, and I know Members from across the House will join me in thanking her for this opportunity to discuss it today, because we all share a desire to make sure we fund our public services in the best way possible. We are talking about the schools and hospitals people rely on, as well as the roads, train lines, energy supplies and broadband coverage. In short, we are talking about the public services that not only keep our economy running, but help us to generate new jobs and new opportunities for people across the country.
As someone who has run a number of businesses and now finds himself as a Minister at the Treasury, I do not want to see money wasted. My priority, and that of my colleagues in Government, is therefore to make sure that when we invest in the services people need, we get a good outcome and we pay a good price. Clearly, teaming up with the private sector can be an important way to finance new projects in the most efficient way possible, because often these are complex, difficult projects, which come with a range of risks to delivering them successfully, on time and on budget. One benefit that PFI brought was to move the risks associated with constructing and delivering these projects to the private sector, which was best placed to manage them. For us, that means not only that if something goes wrong, it is the responsibility of the private sector partners to fix it, but that we pay only if the service is working and available for use. As such, partnerships between the public and private sectors can be the best way to find the best value for the taxpayer, and we are clear that we will only enter into public-private partnerships where the evidence shows us that is the case.
We have also done a lot of work to make sure that the system of financing projects privately is as effective as possible. The primary model used for about two decades was, of course, PFI. Although in many cases it was an effective way to deliver new infrastructure, it was not always the case that projects went smoothly, and not all of these partnerships delivered the value for money that we would all want to see. That is why, under the last Government, we did a lot of work to tackle that. We looked at what lessons we could draw from PFI and how we could keep the best parts of it while making important reforms. That culminated in the 2012 launch of a new model for how public private partnerships could work, PF2, which has helped iron out a variety of issues. For example, PFI was often criticised for its long procurement times, which could sometimes last for many years. PF2 has already been shown to deliver shorter procurement times, and has already delivered almost 50 schools and a hospital project.
Under the new system, we have also taken important measures to improve transparency, ranging from the annual publication of data to the Treasury’s involvement on the boards of the companies leading the projects, and we also listened to feedback from stakeholders to build in more flexibility to the standard contracts we used, which often dictated services such as cleaning and catering. These have been removed, which means that the public sector now has a greater say over how the services it uses are run. We also have improved the overall system for new projects going forward. We must bear it in mind that we have a legacy of more than 700 projects that originated under the private finance initiative, which together are worth around £60 billion in terms of capital investment. Six hundred and thirty nine of those projects had reached financial close before May 2010.
We want to do what we can to ensure that these projects run as efficiently as possible. In 2011, we launched a programme to deliver an initial £1.5 billion of savings and efficiencies. We looked at PFI projects across sectors—from health to education and justice to transport. I am pleased to say that, as of March last year, public sector organisations from across local and central Government had reported more than £2 billion of savings and efficiencies over the life of the projects. We are still exploring a potential further £2 billion in savings through the more efficient use of facilities and adjustments to the scope of contracts.
Stella Creasy
The Minister just said there that the Government are still exploring how to make further savings on the scope of the contracts. Can he confirm whether the Government are looking at the rates of return paid on these contracts, and whether there are opportunities to negotiate with the companies that own these contracts—they are spread across the country—to reduce the repayments of interest on them collectively and to consolidate some of the loans for the public sector?
Simon Kirby
What I can say is that the Government are prepared to look at all of these individual arrangements to see where it is possible to obtain the best value for money. Often, it is simply not possible to restructure or to pay off the debt in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer. We would be mad, would we not, if we did not look carefully at providing the best possible value for money and the best possible public services? That is an ongoing issue.
As I was saying, if it is not possible to find obvious savings in a project, we will work with Departments and procuring authorities to improve day-to-day efficiencies and management of the contract.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, including one on equity investments and equity returns. Public sector equity—equity and shareholder loans—committed to PF2 projects as at March 2016 totalled £8.2 million. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, on behalf of the Treasury, plans to collate the equity returns information over the course of this year. This will be the first collection of such data, as the projects included are only now becoming operational and starting to make a return. We have not yet set a date for publication, but we can expect it at an appropriate time in the future.
The hon. Lady asked about the Green Book. I can tell her that it will be refreshed later this year. There will be clear guidance to Departments about the alternatives to PF2, and about whether that particular form of finance is the most appropriate. She also mentioned value for money. To be clear, the Government will only use public private partnerships such as PF2 to deliver a project that provides value for money over a publicly financed solution. Analysis is carried out using the principles in the Green Book, which is published by the Treasury.
Stella Creasy
Obviously, one issue here is whether there is effective competition for our businesses as consumers. I did urge the Minister to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to review that very point, so that there may be more options and more alternatives. It may help us to understand why there are barriers to the alternatives. Will he agree to that, and will he clarify what he means by the appropriate time for those equity returns data? Obviously, we have been promised that for more than 18 months. Will he guarantee that that will be an early Christmas present at the very least?
Simon Kirby
I can certainly guarantee that it will be as soon as possible. The thing is we need the data to be able to report on them. Most of these projects are only just starting, so I am sure that we will have it as soon as is reasonable.
The hon. Lady mentions alternatives. I am fortunate to have in my constituency, Brighton Kemptown, a fantastic new hospital being built at nearly £500 million. It is not using PFI or PF2. It is the Royal Sussex county hospital. Each of these projects is financed in different ways, but all projects should provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Projects are financed in different ways. The hon. Lady’s local hospital, Whipps Cross, which is part of the Barts hospital PFI, was bond-financed. Refinancing is far more difficult and far less practical for bond debt. It is safe to say that refinancing of bonds is unlikely to provide value for money. The aim is value for money not only in the financing of new projects, but in changing or varying an existing finance arrangement.
Stella Creasy
I am pleased that the Minister refers to my local hospital. That is owned by Innisfree, which owns a huge number of such projects across the country. I am not sure if the one in Sherwood is one of those. I believe some of those in Brighton Kemptown may have some connection to Innisfree. There is a case to be made for renegotiating with such companies, which may wish to bid for PF2 business in the future. Is the Minister satisfied that there is enough competition for our business as taxpayers? Will he refer the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority so that it can look at whether those companies have a captive market, and whether alternatives such as bonds or the pension funds might be willing to invest in such projects and help out those public services, as well as not making the same mistakes with PF2 as seem to have been made with PFI?
Simon Kirby
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that question. I am happy to reassure her and give her a commitment that I will look at any solution that provides value for money. If that means that we should have more competition, so be it. We have a responsibility as a Government to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. In many cases we are historically in a difficult position. Her hospital finance was agreed in 2006, if I remember correctly. It is very difficult to unwind, but if she is asking me whether it is the Government’s intention to get the best possible deal, the answer is yes. If, after all the necessary investigation and consideration, it was appropriate to follow the route that she suggests, I would certainly consider that.
I reiterate that the issue is important. There is surprising agreement across the House. We all want to see the best possible public services and we all want the best possible deal for our constituents and the taxpayers who pay for these vital infrastructure projects, but we must be realistic about what we can change from the past. That does not mean that we should give up and accept that it is not possible to provide a better deal. We aim to achieve the best possible value always, because that is what the public expect and what the nation’s finances need, and it is what I and this Government will do our best to deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Stella Creasy Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by associating myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) about the dreadful situation in Brussels.
This debate has seemed to be more about astronomy than about the Budget, because we have all been talking about black holes. However, there is a clear analogy to be drawn. It will be remembered that Stephen Hawking famously described what he called the “black hole paradox”: the idea that information could simply disappear into a black hole, never to be restored, although all matter contained information that was to be held in perpetuity. What a perfect analogy that is, given that, at this point, we simply have no information about how the Budget will stack up. Our colleagues in local government would rightly be horrified.
Where can we find information about the impact of the Budget? We can find it in our constituencies, and obtain it from the people whom we represent. In the time that I have been granted, I shall offer three areas of information on which we can judge the Chancellor’s work. The first is personal debt; the second is savings; and the third is productivity. Those are three areas in which this Budget signally fails the British people.
It is no accident that personal household debt in this country is going up and up. “Unprecedented” is the term that the Office for Budget Responsibility has used to describe the impact of the Chancellor’s plans on our constituents. Unsecured personal debt is set to reach 3% of GDP and to stay at that level. This is a black hole into which the Chancellor is asking the public to pour their own money to pay for his mistakes. Just how bad is the situation? The Bank of England tells us that people are now borrowing £1 billion a month in this country. In January alone, people put £500 million on their credit cards, and Aviva tells us that the average family debt is now £13,000, up £4,000 from last summer’s level.
Those on the Conservative Benches who are casual about credit miss the point. Not everyone is paying the same level of interest. Some are being charged excessive amounts for the debts that they are getting into to pay for the Chancellor’s mistakes. The hon. Member for South Dorset talked about people putting their houses up to fund their businesses, but many in our communities have long given up on the dream of home ownership as a result of the debt that they are now in. Wages have risen by just 4% in the last few years, but house prices have gone up by 76%. We know that every single penny matters. That is why it is such a problem that people face these levels of debt. This Chancellor is banking on the British habit of borrowing, but that is like putting Wayne Rooney in charge of a stock-take in a Nike shop.
This is not just about people’s borrowing habits. The fact is that we are now a nation that cannot save either. We are saving just 4% of our disposable income, which is half as much as we were saving four years ago. That is the lowest level of personal saving since 1963. Help to Save will do little for the 26 million people in our country who do not even have access to £1,000 for an emergency. On this Government’s watch, they have no rainy day money. Lifetime ISAs are out of reach for those people who have too much month at the end of their money.
We are seeing a situation of rising personal debt, and low or no savings, in which wages are now stalling. This has an impact on our public finances, because it leads to lower tax receipts. They are down £44 billion on the projections made in 2011. That is why we on this side of the House are angry when we see that those who will do well out of the Budget are those who can well afford to pay. We know that 80% of the gains from the Budget will go to those in the top half of the income distribution, and that half of that amount will go to the top 20%. Meanwhile, debt is locking our people out of opportunities.
George Kerevan
Is the hon. Lady aware that the very act of running a budget surplus—that is, putting more in than we take out—forces the public accounts into a situation in which private borrowing increases?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman might not know of my long-held concerns about the way in which this Government are managing the public finances. We do not have time today to talk about PFI debt, or about PF2, which is going to lead to even more problems.
We on this side of the House get the fact that we need to get the deficit down, because every single penny that we pay in interest, and every single penny that we use to pay for the mistakes in this Government’s borrowing, is money that could be invested in our people. It could be invested in the public services that our communities need in order to succeed. That is the point about this Budget. It is not just about the damage that it is doing to people today, or about the debts and destitution that they face now. It is about the narrowing of their horizons tomorrow, too.
We can see the Government signally failing to deal with the productivity gap Britain faces, and the 18% difference between ourselves and our competitors. They are failing to invest in our young people. By the end of this Parliament, China intends to produce 195 million graduates. Not just China is investing in its people; Brazil, Russia and Argentina are as well. Our children will have to compete with graduates from those countries, but our Government are offering them nothing in that regard. We can see the consequences for them in the productivity gap. And when the Government are forcing every school to become an academy, we can see that they are rejecting their own responsibility.
How very different this is from when we sat here a year ago and listened to the Chancellor claim that he was fixing the roof and that Britain would be able to walk tall again. He is a bit like one of those builders we see on the “Watchdog” programme. I would encourage the British people to go to their trading standards officer about him, but the Government have cut that service too. They are left with only one alternative, to look to an alternative party of government—the Labour party—to offer a genuine investment in the future of our young people and a genuine recognition of why fiscal responsibility matters. This is a black hole that is sucking everything out of this country—including, hopefully, the Chancellor’s career.
Finance Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris
In that particular respect, the hon. Gentleman has heard me correctly. However, if he had heard my earlier remarks, he would also be aware of my great unease at many other policies put forward by the current Government as well as by the previous Conservative-led Government. But in the narrow respect to which he refers, he did understand me correctly.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a Government who voted three times against a cap on the cost of credit should not be lecturing the Opposition on how to protect the vulnerable? Perhaps if they had listened earlier to the concerns expressed from the Labour Benches about people who are vulnerable and who have personal debt in this current economic climate, this country would have made much more progress.
Rob Marris
I agree that progress can be pitifully slow under Conservative-led Governments, and that sometimes those Governments are very slow learners. With regard to the work that my hon. Friend has done, which has an echo in the safeguards under clause 47, she has persuaded the Government to be less hard-nosed and to be more “listening” about financial vulnerability than they had previously been and much credit for that success must go to her for her work with charities and others.
New clause 10 seeks in a very reasonable and moderate way to have a review of the effects of clause 47. The review would cover the total amount recovered, and whether it was as expected. It would cover the number of cases dealt with: would it be 11,000, because at one point the Government thought that it might be 19,000? It might also provide some measure of the effectiveness of the new procedure. I say to the Minister that we on the Labour Benches do not like the procedure, because it smacks of hypocrisy—of the Government, not of him personally. It is a case of, “It’s one rule for them and another for us. The court system is not working, so we will do a workaround on that.”
I now wish to turn to new clause 11 on the climate change levy, and to amendment 90, which would delete clause 45 on the CCL. In a sense, the proposal is a double negative. If clause 45 were deleted, the exemption would be restored. Again, I urge the Government to look at both these measures, which retain, certainly for the moment, the exemption on the climate change levy and, as stated in new clause 11, look at the effect of the abolition of that exemption. As I understand it, there was no consultation to speak of before the measure was announced. In contradistinction, when a fundamental change to the tax regime of combined heat and power units was introduced, that industry got two years’ notice of exemptions. In this case, this year, there was 28 days’ notice, which is next to no notice at all, because these things have long lead times.
I accept the Government’s figure that a third of this exemption is claimed by overseas producers—if only that were not the case. When many, if not all, western countries address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the nub of what we are talking about, they tend to offshore the problem. Carbon dioxide intensive manufacturing, using lots of non-renewable fossil fuels, gets relocated by capitalists to places such as China and India, making it look as if the CO2 emissions per capita in the United Kingdom are falling quite dramatically, but if the CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom were to include those for which UK residents and consumers are responsible, we would see a rather different picture. Of course Labour Members are not happy about a third of this exemption money going overseas, but in one sense that is all part of offshoring. As far as one can see, successive Governments have been turning a blind eye to the offshoring of greenhouse gas emissions to China and India and so on, but when we are talking about measures to lessen that, no offshoring is to be allowed under this Government. They should think again.
I am not intimate with the industry—this is after all a finance debate and not an energy debate—but I accept that the cost of the CCL exemption in the five years of this Parliament could be in the order of £4 billion. We are talking about a lot of money. It is symptomatic of this Government being penny wise and pound foolish—if one can be penny wise with £4 billion—because they are cutting the exemption too soon, before the industry reaches self-sufficiency. If the industry were treated like the nuclear industry, we would have 100 years of subsidy before deciding whether the technology worked and it was self-sufficient. I am not suggesting that, but what we have is an industry in which the UK has been pretty successful. Indeed, it is a desirable industry. It is a renewables industry which, on all the evidence of which I am aware, is likely to grow in future years around the world, not shrink. We had some technological lead and a skilled UK workforce, but then the Government take us a step back with what they do at 28 days’ notice to the CCL exemption. I understand that prospective onshore wind projects are, almost as we speak, being abandoned, which is regrettable. That is not to say that every one of those projects should proceed, but it is regrettable if the whole industry is shrinking.
As I understand it, the impact assessment for the changes to the CCL exemption and the feed-in tariff is that there will be 1 million more tonnes of CO2 produced in the UK each year, which seems to be going in the wrong direction. What other financial incentives are there to encourage UK non-domestic users—I am talking about business and the public sector, not households—to use renewables? Secondly, in what ways are the renewables obligation and contracts for difference more efficient and more effective?
Sir William Cash
I do not think new clause 7 is strong enough. It just asks for progress. We are not doing enough. Let me explain why.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who presumably helped to draft this proposal, knows perfectly well that he is trying to find a way of satisfying those who would like to see a serious attempt made to reduce the VAT on these products. They are clearly necessary and the tax on them should be reduced in the way that has been proposed. Unfortunately, however, he also knows that because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act, it is impossible to do that without getting the agreement of all the other member states. There is a variation as between other member states and ourselves to the advantage of those states, the net result of which is that supporters of new clause 7 are not going to get that agreement and they know it.
I am completely on the side of those who want to see a total elimination of VAT on these products.
Stella Creasy
I note with pleasure the hon. Gentleman’s support for the idea that tampons, as they are called, and sanitary towels are an essential. I am an avid follower of many of his debates in Parliament, and I know that he has raised concerns before about the European Union. Having discovered his support for this proposal, I wonder whether he can update us on when he last raised in this House the issue of VAT on tampons.
Sir William Cash
I am not going to say that I did, but I put through an Act of Parliament, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, both to protect women and to promote their interests, with massive support from all parts of the House, so I want no suggestion that I am backward in coming forward on these issues.
New clause 7 contains weasel words. It does not solve anything. It is not in the interests of the United Kingdom not to deal with the problem properly.
Stella Creasy
I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about his concern for global gender inequality, and his support for the idea that tampons are an essential and therefore should not be zero-rated. There is another way to read the amendment, is there not? Were we to pass it and to propose these matters at the European Union and secure zero-rating on tampons across the whole EU, he would be showing solidarity with his sisters in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy—indeed, he could be helping many more women by supporting zero-rating across the European Union.
Sir William Cash
If there were a cat in hell’s chance that we would get this through the European Union, I would entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments. I would like to see the changes. The problem is that everybody on the Opposition Benches and the Government know quite well that they are not going to be able to achieve that with the kind of progress report that is mentioned in the new clause. It would be a great opportunity now to propose a provision that would override European law to make sure that we could achieve the objectives that she and I clearly share.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I do not want to pursue this, not least because I am avidly waiting for the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), which I think will be compelling, but may I give him a spark of hope? It is not just on these shores that there are women—and men—fighting for zero-rating on tampons; there are others doing so in France. The proposal was put forward just this summer. Should he choose to vote with us and support the new clause, he will be joining many people across the European Union. I want him to have hope that we can win this at the European level, rather than the despair that he currently feels.
Sir William Cash
My final remarks on the issue are these: that is wishful thinking. What is needed is not a report, but action—action to return to this Parliament the right to determine its own levels of taxation. I regard the proposals in the new clause as aspirations without substance, yet I agree with the underlying principle, which can be implemented only by an effective legislative change to the Finance Bill, whereby we take back control over our own affairs and govern not only the men but the women of this country in the way in which they would like.
Mr Baker
This problem of taxation on tampons and other sanitary products is one that, quite rightly, excites a great degree of anger and controversy, but the solution to the problem is uncontroversial. It is perfectly obvious that we are all agreed in the House that we should get rid of the tax on tampons and other sanitary products. The reason why this is a subject of interest to so many is that the House is of course prohibited from doing so by EU law.
Stella Creasy
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why he thinks that purchase tax, which was also applied to tampons before our entry into the European Community, was not similarly egregious to women?
Stella Creasy
It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). However he got to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), I am grateful, because tonight we have an opportunity to make progress on this issue.
I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and hear his story of our meeting back in 1993—more than 20 years ago. That offers a parable for tonight’s debate, and an opportunity for the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to have hope when it comes to difficult issues. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is right to recall that, as a newly elected MP, he came to my school to speak to the girls on a wet afternoon, and got a grilling from one member of the sixth form. I am sad that the debates we had about child poverty and access to further education did not make such an impression on him, but I am delighted and genuinely humbled to hear that he took the issue that we raised back to the then shadow Cabinet for debate. As he knows, at the same time my headteacher threatened to exclude me should I ask the MP any more difficult questions.
The parable that I think that offers for negotiations in Europe is simple: we may need courage to raise difficult issues with a respected authority figure, but—I say this to the hon. Member for Stone—look at what happens when such issues are raised. People who we think might disagree with us, in fact turn out 20 years later to be champions for social and progressive change.
Sir William Cash
In 1993 we were conducting the entire Maastricht referendum in order to get the results that the hon. Lady wants on this particular matter. At that time, we realised that if we did not sort out the European Union properly, we would never get the kind of equality that she is now demanding.
Stella Creasy
The idea that if we do not ask a question we shall never find out the answer is an issue that is on point tonight, and one reason why this eminently reasonable and sensible new clause should garner support from across the House. This debate has not happened at the European level, and, given what happened 20 years ago, my point is that when we ask such questions and challenge people, we can be amazed at the results we secure.
This debate is not about VAT or even the European Union. I recognise that the hon. Member for Wycombe was too young to take part in the vote to join the European Community, but my point in mentioning the purchase tax is that it is a bit of a red herring to think that this is about the European Union. Tampons and sanitary towels have always been considered a luxury. That is not by accident; that is by design in an unequal society in which the concerns of women are not treated as equal to those of men. Even if we were not in the European Union, there is every possibility that a purchase tax would be applied to sanitary towels and tampons but not to other products.
Sir William Cash
The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 was nothing to do with the European Union. Some of us believe passionately in the same sorts of arguments that the hon. Lady is putting forward, and that is by no means exclusive to issues of the European Union.
Stella Creasy
I will come on to issues of gender and equality on an international level, but I give the hon. Gentleman warning that I will not take any more interventions from him unless he uses the terms “sanitary towels” and “tampons”. It is important to use appropriate wording in the House.
The inequality that women have faced in having to pay this tax has existed for generations. The question for us all is what we can do to change that, which is why I add my name to those who have congratulated the former Member for Bristol South, Dame Dawn Primarolo. She is a hero to many of us for her persistence in fighting to reduce the rate of VAT on sanitary towels and tampons in the European Union in 2000. I have talked to her at first hand about those negotiations—she had to use the appropriate terms and explain that if we did not resolve this issue, men and women could be sitting next to each other, with women experiencing their periods and the difficulties that can come from that, but without that same protection because of the cost of these products. Her work was visionary.
Talking to Dame Dawn Primarolo, it became clear that this is not about VAT rates but about VAT descriptions. I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about this, because there is common agreement that we wish to resolve this issue and a recognition that in 2015, a tax on women—a femitax, a vagina tax, or whatever we want to call it—is unfair. The issue can be resolved not necessarily by considering VAT rates, but by considering the way that VAT is described and ascribed to certain products. That is where the inequality has come from—the concept of what is a necessity.
Stella Creasy
I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is like 20 years ago.
Mr Jenkin
I do not remember the hon. Lady giving way 20 years ago. She was at the very fine Colchester county high school for girls, which is a grammar school. In parenthesis, I am delighted that, through the reforms we are pursuing, this Government are doing more for educational opportunities for the least advantaged than any Government in living memory.
Why does the hon. Lady think that Dame Dawn Primarolo was unable to remove the 5% VAT on tampons and sanitary towels when she succeeded in reducing the things that we had discretion over? Why did she not take this initiative to the European Union? It was because she found that the Government of the day felt that they had other, more important fish to fry in their negotiations with the European Union. We should get away from such an unsatisfactory give and take to national interests by leaving the European Union.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the school that I attended. I was incredibly lucky to get there, having failed the 11-plus the first time I took it. I shall always be against selection because I recognise the benefits that I received from being able to take that exam a second time and get that education. That school taught me to do my homework, which is why I know that one of the rules and challenges of this issue is that zero-rated VAT is different from reduced rate VAT. At the time, Dawn Primarolo found that the issue was not about unwillingness but about the way that the rules on what a zero-rating—as opposed to a reduced rating—could be applied to had been changed. That is why she was able to secure a reduction in VAT to 5% from 17.5%—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that was progress—but this issue is about the way that products are described.
I am sure that the Minister knows his history of value added tax, how a product is described and what is described as a “necessity”. It is important to have a concept of what is currently described as a “necessity” and is therefore zero-rated. I wonder whether Conservative Members will agree that when we change these definitions, progress can be made.
For example, Jaffa Cakes are zero-rated. I am not a fan of Jaffa Cakes—let it be known that if I am offered a Jaffa Cake, I will refuse. I do not consider them to be essential to my life; I can give or take them. I recognise that razors are zero-rated, and judging by many Conservative Members the opportunity to shave every day is a human right. They are cleanly shaven, and I am sure they would be concerned to be charged a higher rate of VAT. Pitta bread is zero-rated—we can probably all agree that that is a necessity. What is the kebab without a good pitta bread around it? It is a necessity. When we start looking at what is described as a “necessity” and what is a “luxury”, we see the inequalities in this debate. As I said earlier, those inequalities existed long before we joined the European Union and long before we started to work on value added tax.
The question for all of us is not how to have similar rates of taxation, but how to recognise the similar descriptions. That is the way that this issue can be resolved in the European Union. It is also why working with our colleagues in other countries matters to us. I come back to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Stone about gender inequality, because he is absolutely right: our sisters in France are paying 20% on their tampons and sanitary towels because they do not have the reduced rate. This is therefore not about sanitary towels and the rate of taxation across the European Union; it is about the way in which different countries have interpreted the concept of necessity and essentials.
Stella Creasy
I have been very clear with the hon. Gentleman. Unless he is prepared to talk about the actual products that we are discussing, I will not take any more interventions from him, but if he is indicating that he can say the word, I will happily give way.
Sir William Cash
With respect to the question of sanitary towels and tampons, may I simply make this point? I recognise that the hon. Lady really knows what she is talking about, so I would like to know whether, in her experience, there is a similar problem internationally, outside the European Union, that perhaps comes from international organisations? Could she please explain whether there is anything in that?
Stella Creasy
And people say that progress cannot be made in this Chamber or that there cannot be cross-party agreement! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, 10% of girls in Africa do not go to school when they have their periods because they do not have appropriate sanitary protection, so he is right to be concerned about this. What I am saying—let us see whether we can tempt him to make further progress—is that feminism should be without borders; in which case we should be concerned about inequality in the tax rates and VAT that our sisters pay in a range of countries, including those in the European Union.
Tonight we have an opportunity, here in the British Parliament, to show solidarity across the continent and make sure that this issue is part of the negotiating process. Because let us be honest, it was never part of the negotiating process in this House prior to joining the European Community. It was only part of the negotiating process because of Dame Dawn Primarolo. It is a red herring to think that this is about the European Union; rather, it is a recognition that the time has come to end these inequalities. Our sisters in France tried to bring forward legislation just this summer and were defeated. What a strong message of social progress we could send from the British Parliament today by passing this proposal and sending our Prime Minister to have that difficult conversation and to say, “How do we clarify the way in which essential items are categorised across the European Union? How do we make this work for 51% of our population?”
I am sensing from the hon. Member for Stone that he does care about these issues deeply and does recognise the inequality. If he has frustration tonight, it is simply that he is not seeing progress happening quickly enough. Let me reassure him that, whether it takes 20 years or two hours of debate, it is possible to make progress. I urge him to support our new clause, so that we can send our Prime Minister to the European Union with something worth fighting for. We can all hear back from him in February whether he has made progress and been able to say to our French, German and Italians counterparts that tampons and sanitary towels should be treated as necessities in 2015. I am sure that when we hear that message from the Minister tonight, he will give us great succour—that he will use the appropriate terms and bring us all into the 21st century by supporting the new clause as well.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
May I give my respects to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for bringing this debate to the House? I have heard some very interesting figures this evening—in particular, that 250,000 people have signed previous amendments and discussion points about this issue over the years, and I know that there have been all sorts of discussions about this very issue for as long as I have been in Parliament.
I am not surprised that new clause 7 has attracted cross-party support, with many Members, both female and male, from the Government, SNP and, obviously, Labour Benches supporting it, and so they absolutely should, because this has always been, and will always be, a wholly illogical tax. We heard some interesting detail from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I would not know the difference between various products if they were laid out, yet some would be zero-rated and some would be taxed at the lower rate, although this is not just a female issue. I think she described some of these items as “Oops-a-daisy” products, and if there is a male “Oops-a-daisy” product, it would be zero-rated, so we can immediately see these anomalies in the tax system. Nappies have always been zero-rated because they relate to children. Indeed, one of the anomalies that we have enjoyed compared with much of the European Union—how long that will last, who knows—is that children’s products and food continue to be zero-rated, no matter how luxurious the food might appear to some.
Stella Creasy
It is incredibly welcome to hear that the Minister is going to raise this matter, but may I press him to be a bit clearer about which environment he will raise it in, and about when we will hear back? Will he also confirm that the European Commission can produce a zero rating if it is declared to be in the public interest to do so? Will he commit to raising that point as part of his negotiations with the European Commission? We all recognise the points that have been made about the technicalities of VAT, but there is a public interest exemption that he could use in his negotiations, is there not?
Tax Credits
Stella Creasy Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra
I will give way in a moment if I can make some more progress.
It is shocking that the Government continue to avoid telling the truth about these changes, including the Prime Minister, to whom I wrote last week, asking him to clarify his comments that after all the Government’s changes a family where one earner is on the minimum wage will be £2,400 better off. He is yet to be clear about how he reached that conclusion, how many families will gain in the way he suggests or what assessment he makes of the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, Barnardo’s and so many others who are against these changes.
The Chancellor chose either not to perform or not to publish an impact assessment of these changes for the Commons—a move that was criticised in no uncertain terms by the Social Security Advisory Committee. There are only two ways to interpret that: the Government either do not want to know or do not want to tell.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend talks about the impact of these changes. Let me give her one simple example from my Walthamstow constituency of a working mum. When her tax credits were delayed, we had to refer her to a food bank because they were literally the difference between being on the breadline and having bread. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will happen to working people across the country if these changes go ahead?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She highlights, too, the impact of the Government’s appalling administrative processes on our constituents. They are left trying to make ends meet and having to go to food banks. More than 60% of the use of food banks is due to issues with benefits and benefits administration.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) because I see a very different situation. I genuinely believe that the different situations that we see and the consequences of the tax credit cuts that the Government are introducing speak volumes about the choices that the British people face.
I want to take up the challenge set by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He rightly said that those of us on this side of the House are not an Opposition. I agree with him: we are an alternative. I want to set out what being an alternative means and why we would take different decisions on tax credits.
First and foremost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pointed out—I am sad he is not here—the order in which change happens is crucial to the impact that it has. There is general agreement in the House that we all want to see a higher wage, lower welfare economy and higher productivity. Surely the test of every change the Government make should be whether it will achieve those things. The simple answer is that this change will not.
The evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that none of the Government’s changes to mitigate the impact of the cuts will raise family living standards. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, employers are raising wages. I am a little more cynical than him and suspect that they are doing so because changes in the law are coming, rather than out of benign munificence and a recognition of the benefits to productivity of paying a higher wage.
Nevertheless, the order in which the Government are undertaking the changes will make all the difference to the people in this country. They could decide to change the order and introduce the so-called living wage first, then look at the tax credit cuts. That would make a difference because of one matter that was sorely absent from the Exchequer Secretary’s contribution. I am surprised that he did not mention it, given that he used to be an expert on it. He is presiding over an economy in which personal debt is rising at an alarming rate. The Minister looks quizzical. He says that the burden of the Government’s changes is being distributed equally, but the burden of personal debt is not equally distributed in this country, as we see at first hand in our communities. We see families for whom borrowing on a credit card or from friends and family, or taking out a payday loan, is the only way that they can make ends meet.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech and I, too, am confused about why the Minister is looking so perplexed. The Office for Budget Responsibility stated that because of measures introduced in the Chancellor’s Budget, unsecured borrowing will rise by £45 billion by the next election. My hon. Friend’s point is pertinent to the debate.
Stella Creasy
The Minister kept talking about the amount of public debt that he wanted to attribute to each household, but average unsecured personal debt is now £10,000 per household. Given the vulnerability to which families are exposed when they have that level of unsecured debt, will the changes make it more or less likely that such personal debt will rise? No one in the House would argue that the changes as currently constituted will not lead to a rise in personal debt to families, and we know the consequences of that. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) who honestly and openly set out the consequences of debt. She explained the worries she has when she sees families who are struggling with debt, and Labour Members share those concerns.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Lady’s passion but she is missing the context. The changes are part of a package that include a national minimum wage, 30 hours of free childcare, and a lock on tax rises. Taking that into account, wages and personal income will rise—does she not see that?
Stella Creasy
I beg the hon. Lady to read research from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies that shows that none of those changes will compensate for the difference in income. I ask her to look into her heart and consider whether families in her constituency will end up borrowing because they find that there is even more month at the end of their money as a result of these changes and the way they are being introduced.
I understand the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe but there are alternative choices. We all want the deficit to go down—some of us do not want to see Governments borrowing from banks anymore—and we recognise the problems in our economy. Some of us are deeply concerned about the consequences for families of having that level of personal debt hanging over their heads. When interest rates rise—and they will—a 2% increase will lead to an extra £1,000 a year in interest payments alone that families will have to find. Families in other constituencies might have £1,000 hanging around, but not those in my constituency. With one third of people in this country having no savings at all, the changes as they stand will eat not into people’s savings or borrowings, but into their debt. That is the consequence we are facing and we need alternative ways to deal with that.
Let me offer some alternative ideas for how we could cut the cake and reduce this country’s debt. The Government could make changes to inheritance tax, although I recognise that Conservative Members do not like that idea. Alternatively, let us look at capital gains tax. The Chancellor made great play of putting capital gains tax on the sale of commercial property, but he left open a loophole for residential property. Were the Government to close that gap, none of these changes would need to take place.
Debt is a problem in itself. This Government are paying out £10 billion in public finance initiative debt repayments. Were they to get serious about renegotiating PFI debt—they would receive support for that from those on the Opposition Benches—we could save that money. The speech by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was powerful because there are always choices to be made. Labour Members would make different choices and put first those people for whom £10,000 of unsecured personal debt means not only suffering the indignity of going to a food bank or going hungry every day, but that they cannot make long-term choices for their family’s future, or even entertain the idea of getting on the housing ladder. They will not be able to pay the social care costs that the hon. Member for Erewash spoke about, or let their children go into further or higher education, because they simply cannot afford it. We see the potential that will be wasted as a result.
We want to make choices that will help those families, help the economy to be more productive, and help this country truly to bounce back, but that is not the choice being made by the Government tonight. I urge Government Members who recognise the debt held in their communities and understand that this measure will make it worse not better, to think again and to work with us on when and how these changes come in and how we can make sure everyone benefits from a higher wage, higher productivity economy. I promise them that the families in trouble who are coming to them now need and deserve nothing less.
Rent-to-own Sector
Stella Creasy Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and it is a genuine pleasure to take part in this debate. The Treasury Minister might be surprised to see a shadow Minister from the Business, Innovation and Skills team but, as he knows, I have form in this area. I am secretly delighted that he is now in the Treasury, especially on the issue of debt. I hope he will be the cuckoo in the nest of the Treasury when it comes to getting right the issue of how we help people in debt.
First, I acknowledge the work that the all-party group, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) have been doing in this area. I want to talk a little about some of the work that was done on this issue for the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and I also want to say something about the broader context in which the firms operate. Finally, as I always like to be helpful, I would like to suggest some proposals for making progress on this issue to the Minister, and test whether he is willing to support them.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys on securing this debate. He said he is concerned that shadow Front Benchers may not be aware of these companies and may make the same mistake that others have made in thinking that the rent-to-own sector is about housing. Let me reassure him that the Opposition call a spade a spade. Legal loan sharking takes many forms. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield and I are as concerned about the rent-to-own sector and debt management companies as we are about payday lenders. That is why we have been campaigning for a number of years for reform of the sector.
Hon. Members will recognise concern in my part of town about what we call the “BrightHouse knock”—when we are knocking doors during campaigns, we have to be careful not to knock like the bailiffs, because people think we are BrightHouse coming to repossess their goods. I may have expressed some surprise when my hon. Friend cited BrightHouse’s statement that it does not repossess goods—it seems, then, that that is happening only in my part of town.
Rent-to-own companies are legal loan sharks. They operate in exactly the same way as the payday lending industry and a number of other consumer credit industries. They lend in a way that is designed to encourage a persistent relationship. The problem is that they lend in a way that does not ensure that people have access to fair credit, but ensures that they continue to pay something back weekly. They make sure they always get money out of people. In what other industry is there such a high default rate, yet such high profits to be made? That should surely tell us that it is not a competitive industry, and that there are problems that need to be addressed. We have all seen at first hand people in our communities who are exploited by that predatory model of lending.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being on time, Mr Hollobone. I flew in this morning. We stayed for 12 July, which, as hon. Members will know, is a special day in Northern Ireland.
I, too, have great interest in this issue. My constituents regularly come to me when they have entered into hire-purchase arrangements, and sometimes arrangements with loan sharks as well. What I see is their desperation. They have made a decision based on what is right at that moment in time, rather than what is good for them in future. Does the hon. Lady have any idea about how the Consumer Rights Act can be better utilised, or how someone can control it, to ensure that when people make such desperate decisions, we can help them at the right time?
Stella Creasy
I do not want to keep the hon. Gentleman on tenterhooks. I have some ideas, growing on the work that the all-party group and my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield have done on the industry. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we can do things to change the situation. We need to recognise that it is predatory lending. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about vulnerable people being exploited, and that practice is much more widespread than people realise.
The hon. Member for Strangford is right; people make what is probably the right decision for them at the time about where they could get a freezer, cooker or other basic consumer goods that their family need to live. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys was tempted into a discussion about consumerism and modern life, but the reason we began campaigning on legal loan-sharking in my community was that we could see that people were trying to make ends meet and needed to be able to wash their kids’ clothes so that they had school uniform. Those companies were their only option, and the method of lending increasingly prevented them from going to other companies. It affected their credit histories so they could not borrow from other parts of the industry.
Frankly, it is very expensive to be poor in this country, and the problems are compounded by the companies in question and by predatory lending. Consumers lack choice, and that distorts the market price that they pay. Some hon. Members have already talked about the method of selling, “pay weekly”. For the shadow Front Bench the issue is the mindset—lending to people in a way that means they cannot get away. We have all seen examples of what has been mentioned, when people pay double the cost of a washing machine, cooker or TV, and then some, only to have the goods repossessed like that—I do not know whether Hansard can record my clicking my fingers, but it is that quick. As soon as someone falls behind for a week the company comes round. There is no breathing space or recognition that something about the lending may have got people into difficulty so that they cannot make their repayments. There is no such responsibility.
The Opposition have tabled several proposals to deal with the companies in question, and other legal loan sharks, for some years. The Minister is aware of that and I know that he shares my concern about the companies. We may differ on how best to deal with them and with predatory lending, but he too is concerned about it. During the passage of the Consumer Rights Act we tried to address the issue of warranties and insurance sold with products, and how that breached people’s consumer rights. They would be sold a product with a requirement that created a lack of clarity and transparency about what they were buying. I recognise that some companies now say that those things are not compulsory, but we all know about the hard sell. I remember the Minister talking about his experience of being on the BrightHouse mailing list. I am interested to know whether he has finally managed to disentangle himself from that. He will know how hard the companies push the products, as part of the original deal that was agreed to. Even if they are not now compulsory, the arrangements are still difficult for consumers to get out of.
The Minister may take the opportunity, now he is no longer in coalition, to suggest that he was held back by his former partners in his attempts to deal with the problems, and say that he is now free to get to grips with legal loan sharks. He is among friends as far as wanting that freedom to be exercised. During the passage of the Consumer Rights Act, Jenny Willott, the then Under-Secretary, said:
“If a warranty provides no more than the statutory rights and there is a charge associated with it, whoever is selling the warranty may well be in breach of consumer protection regulations. When shops sell goods and the warranty is purchased at the same time, the full cost must be disclosed and consumers must be informed of their statutory rights. Consumers also have the right to cancel the extended warranty within a set period, and those rights must be made known to the consumers when they purchase the warranty.”—[Official Report, 13 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 623.]
The Under-Secretary was adamant that our proposals for prohibiting such agreements were covered under the consumer rights measures that were being introduced, so one of my questions to the Minister today is what he knows about the implementation of such rights since then. After all, the Act has been passed, and the Government set up a consumer rights implementation group. Is the issue of rent-to-own companies being investigated by that group? How are we making sure that consumers can exercise the rights they now have under the Act? That would also extend to marketing methods—the Minister will know about marketing lists—and how companies tell people their rights and make sure they know that they do not have to take out insurance or an extended warranty. Often such warranties are not worth the paper they are written on and offer consumers no additional protection or benefits. Is that being made plain to people?
Why does all that matter? Why must we get to grips with those companies? It is because we know the issue is fundamentally about debt. Consumer and personal debt in this country are rising into what might be called uncharted territory. Since March, unsecured personal debt has gone up £48 billion. Personal debt is rising three times as fast as wages. The Minister and I disagree about the Budget and whether it will make things worse or better, but we know people are finding that there is too much month at the end of their money. Therefore the companies we are talking about—and their credit agreements and their predatory lending behaviour—are here to stay, unless we show the political will to tackle them and unless we recognise how they make people’s already difficult situation worse. I may disagree with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys about the Government’s decision to abolish the term “child poverty”, but we can all agree that making it difficult for people to make ends meet by leaving them stuck with companies that exploit them and squeeze out every last penny will do no one any favours.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about mortgage debt, and many people with mortgages go to the companies because they have no alternative. If interest rates go up just 2% families will have to find £1,000 extra a year in interest alone, to keep a roof over their head. If they are also trying to pay off an expensive cooker or freezer, we can see what is coming down the road for them. Some of us who fought to retain the social fund will know about the lack of alternatives. Many credit unions do wonderful work trying to come up with alternatives, but the lack of options is compelling people towards the companies in question. In the context where personal debt is rising—and that will cause a massive economic problem for us and put our recovery at risk—there is a compelling case to be much more proactive about predatory lending in the consumer credit market.
With that idea in mind perhaps I may give the Minister some suggestions for things to do, and things to raise with the Financial Conduct Authority. He will know that I have a slight sense that the Financial Conduct Authority is playing catch-up. If the banks were tyrannosaurus rex, legal loan sharks are the velociraptors of the consumer credit market. They are fast, nimble and ever-evolving, and that is evident when we compare the rent-to-own sector with the way lending is done by the lumbering beasts of banks. That is why voluntary action is not enough to deal with the companies. Will the Minister make a commitment to work with the Financial Conduct Authority and to get it to expand its remit, to look at the industries in question and how they can change? In particular, could there be a requirement on lenders to provide pre-contractual information on both the cash price of goods and the total cost of the credit agreement: the difference between the price at the start and what it could be by the end of the agreement? If consumers could have that up-front they would know exactly what the cost would be, including any additional fees and charges.
Companies could be banned from requiring consumers to take out additional products alongside the initial credit agreement—separating out the insurance and warranty to make it clear that, aside from its not being compulsory to buy them, it would be illegal to try to sell such additional products at the same time. The companies could be required to undertake affordability checks based on the possible total cost of the agreement rather than the initial up-front price of the good, so that companies would have to reflect, when doing the affordability check, on what debt people could possibly get into by borrowing in that way, and whether they could pay the money back. We clearly need to change the way affordability checks are done. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that they already do this, but clearly they do not, given the levels of debt that people are getting into. We need to recognise that it is possible for affordability checks to deal with the potential cost of the goods—the doubling of prices—rather than the minimum that someone could pay. They should deal with the maximum that someone could pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield made a powerful point about breathing space. The companies do not give people breathing space when they get into financial difficulty. We want the Government to make a commitment to end fees for debt management. The fact that people have to pay to get out of debt compounds the issue, and I would like a time scale for that change. We recognise that the debt advice industry needs to grow. We would like the Government to use the levy—in fact, to double the levy on the companies—to pay for that. The Minister may want to take up that idea; I do not know. However, we all know that having to pay to get out of debt extends the debt. It makes it harder for people to get into a debt-management agreement. With the companies we are talking about, it would be good to stop the clock once people start the process of getting a debt-management agreement, so that no more interest would be accrued, and there would be no more pressure, visits or BrightHouse knocks on the door.
I encourage the Minister to go further and talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about a reinstitution of the social fund—funding for alternative ways in which people could get white goods in particular. I am sure that the Minister will know from his constituency that people cannot go without a washing machine or cooker. We may disagree about iPads but we can certainly agree that there is a case for basic white goods to be provided.
It would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the commitment that the Government made last year to reviewing personal debt. We have not seen any further information, so will he update us on that review and the work that is being done? There is also the issue of how credit histories are affected by this form of predatory lending, because, even if customers get out of payments required for an individual credit agreement, if that affects their future ability to borrow and to go to alternative or mainstream providers, there is a problem.
Jim Shannon
I apologise again for not being here for the whole debate. I am conscious of how many good groups there are—I have them in my area—such as the citizens advice bureaux, Christians Against Poverty, the Churches and many others. They offer good advice and can often come to an agreement with the hire purchase companies or mortgage groups to reduce the fees to a payment system that is manageable. Does the hon. Lady think that it is important to recognise what such groups do to help people in poverty and debt?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my final point, which is that what we really want is an alternative, but for an alternative to exist, it has to be funded, because this is not a fair fight. What I have noticed, as we have exerted pressure on the Government to tackle the payday lending industry, is that it is retreating from our high streets but that it is being replaced by the rent-to-own industry. This industry and legal loan sharking have evolved because there is no reform. We need an industry that works, because we need people to be able to borrow in this way to make ends meet—because they are not earning enough—and we need to end legal loan sharking by reforming the way in which these companies operate. That requires alternatives. However, our credit unions, housing providers and alternative forms of financing are struggling in an environment in which these companies are making a great deal of money from exploiting people. That is why it is right that the Government not only step in and are much tougher about regulating—learning the lesson of capping the cost of credit by capping what these companies can charge—but look at how we support the alternatives to grow and how we can level the playing field.
My final point is about the particular case for mainstream credit providers. Will the Minister commit to talking to mainstream credit providers, particularly to our banks, to ask them to review how many of their customers have entered into these agreements? I think he would be surprised—just as we found with payday lending companies—that half a million customers from one bank alone, who could have gone to it for a personal loan, were going to payday lenders. We need to make the case that these forms of lending and problems with debt are now so mainstream in Britain and so much part of modern life that there is a case not to see this as separate, small industry but part and parcel of how we help people to make ends meet. The mainstream credit providers have a vested interest in working with credit unions and providers—the Hoot credit union, for example—who do alternative forms of white goods provision to help their customers, because the consequences for the mainstream providers will become apparent when people default on their mortgages and personal loans.
This is not an either/or any more. We have to end legal loan sharking in Britain in its many forms. I hope that the Minister will take in good faith those examples of things that he could do now and accept what the priorities are. I look forward to a positive response from him and hope he will join the Opposition, as the cuckoo in the nest, in saying: let us end predatory lending in Britain once and for all.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Although the Minister can finish before 10.57 am, if he would be kind enough to finish no later than that, that will allow Mr Maynard two and a half minutes to wind up the debate.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone; I think it is the first time I have served under your chairmanship in this way.
I start by congratulating my actual and honourable Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. I also thank Mr Speaker for granting time for the debate. It has been good to hear from all the other contributors to the debate. There was the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), representing the SNP, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—the renaissance man of the 2010 generation in respect of the breadth of subjects on which he contributes in this place; he should be much congratulated on that.
It is always a joy to hear from the shadow Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who brings a great deal of personal experience to these subjects from her time with Citizens Advice. She has been a great campaigner on fee charging, debt management companies and other aspects of the broader sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys spoke powerfully and persuasively about the market—not only through personal stories, anecdotes and his experiences with his constituents, but far more broadly. He raised a number of very important points on disclosure, affordability, comparability, repossession, debt advice and financial management. Others have also touched on those subjects; I hope to cover most of them during my remarks and come to some others at the end.
On my hon. Friend’s point about meetings, the Government are always open to hearing from him and other colleagues who have special knowledge and interest in this area, because we have a shared objective to minimise consumer detriment and generally make the market work better.
The Government are committed to supporting hard-working people to be financially independent and resilient, and to save for unexpected events and for the future. Financial matters, as we all know, can be daunting, and making a poorly informed or sometimes just bad financial decision can have far-reaching consequences over a long period. The Government have taken a number of significant steps to improve the consumer credit market and ensure better outcomes for consumers. As well as fundamental reform of the regulatory framework, there is now, as we have heard, a cap on the cost of payday loans to help protect consumers from harm.
Crucially, the Government are also committed to ensuring that consumers are given the education that they need to make better informed financial decisions. Financial education is now on the national curriculum—something that I know a number of hon. Members campaigned for over an extended period. Pupils now learn about the importance of budgeting, sound management of money, credit and debt, as well as how to understand different financial services and products. It is really important in financial education to understand the principles behind these things and not just the products that might currently be on the market. If we had learned about the financial services products on the market when we were all at school, that would have been of absolutely zero relevance to the world we find ourselves in today: we have to learn about the principles of sound personal financial management and budgeting.
The Government are committed to providing sustainable financial services that give customers greater choice in accessing credit. With greater choice comes greater competition, and from greater competition should come—and generally comes—better outcomes for consumers. For example, the Government have already introduced several initiatives to support the credit union sector, including the credit union expansion project—up to £38 million—and the raising of the maximum interest rate from April 2014, which makes it that bit more possible for the credit union sector to compete in higher-cost, higher-customer-risk markets. That will help to allow consumers access to more alternative forms of consumer credit. For example, a consumer may now use a credit union for a loan to buy a household product, rather than go directly to a rent-to-own store.
That said, as my hon. Friend and, I think, the hon. Member for Walthamstow acknowledged, the rent-to-own sector is an important and legitimate part of the consumer credit landscape, allowing people to purchase essential items that they would otherwise have difficulty in finding the lump sum to buy. However, it is important that consumers who use rent-to-own agreements are protected appropriately from harm and adverse outcomes. There are times when unexpected, one-off expenses mean that consumers require access to credit—that happens throughout the income scale in different ways—either to fund shortfalls in income or to replace essential goods. Rent-to-own agreements allow payments to be spread over a long period, which is valuable for some customers on low incomes who do not have access to more mainstream forms of credit such as credit cards or overdrafts, and who lack the savings to be able to purchase household goods up front.
To help deliver the Government’s vision for a well functioning and sustainable consumer credit market that is able to meet consumers’ needs, the Government have fundamentally reformed regulation of the consumer credit market. That has created a new, more robust regulatory system and transferred regulatory responsibility from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April last year. The new regime has been designed to strike the right balance between proportionality and consumer protection. The Government have ensured that the FCA has the robust powers that it needs to protect consumers. It will thoroughly assess every firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process and has put in place binding standards on firms. It proactively monitors the market, focusing on the areas most likely to cause consumer harm, and it has a broad enforcement toolkit to punish breaches of its rules. There is no limit on the fines that it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers.
In the evidence session for the all-party debt and personal finance group’s inquiry into the rent-to-own sector, the FCA expressed concern about firms in the market. It stated—this quote was used earlier—that practices in the sector “rang alarm bells”. For that reason, it has brought forward the authorisation period for these firms to this summer. Rent-to-own firms that wish to obtain authorisation needed to apply by 30 June. That will ensure that any firms that do not reach the rigorous standards required are not able to continue in business and that poor standards start to be driven out of the market.
With regard to the price of credit, the Government believe that consumers should be protected from unfair costs and charges in the market. The Government showed their commitment by legislating to require the FCA to introduce a cap on the cost of payday loans, which came into force on 2 January 2015. The Government were clear that an interest rate cap or a cap that covered only some of the fees and charges that payday lenders may impose would be ineffective; I remember discussing some of the finer points of that sentence at some length with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. The FCA therefore designed a cap to include all fees and charges that may be incurred in relation to a payday loan, including arrangement fees and default penalties.
The Government legislated to give the FCA the power to cap the cost of all forms of credit. They have placed a duty on the FCA to use that power to impose a cap on the cost of payday loans because of the clear evidence of consumer detriment in that sector. The objective was to target payday lenders. However, the FCA retains the power to cap the cost of all forms of credit if it thinks that that is necessary to protect consumers, and it has said that it will keep the issue of capping the cost of credit in other markets under review.
Stella Creasy
Can the Minister set out for us, then, what evidence he would look for in order to introduce a cap on the charges that the rent-to-own sector may impose? I wonder whether he has a note that will help him to explain what levels of detriment, of costs, would have to apply. Some of us may argue that the cap on the payday lending industry is a little high at the moment, but it could be brought down. The Minister makes the point about a test. What tests would he set?
Damian Hinds
The test would be to appoint a regulator that we believe in and give it the tools to be able to make the decisions—give it the enforcement powers and the analytical capability—rather than, as a Government, meddling in the individual decisions on the details of the regulation. Appointing a regulator is historically how we have done things in this country, not just in this market but in others. It does not always please everyone all the time. Sometimes, people may feel that things should move more quickly or more slowly or be somewhat different, but in general it is a good way to protect consumers.
If at some point we think that the regulatory system in toto is not working, we change the regulatory system, but I do not think that it is right for Government necessarily to have a prescriptive answer to every subsection of the market; as the hon. Member for Walthamstow rightly said, this market, in its broader form, has a remarkable ability to shape-shift. If we go very specifically after one part of it and try to change one specific practice, we will find that something else changes somewhere else that we did not know about. That is why it is important to have this broad regulatory framework that includes high-level principles of fairness to the consumer, with the regulator stepping in to license and delicense operators when it feels that that is necessary.
Stella Creasy
Obviously, the Minister will be conscious that doing nothing has consequences, too; we have seen that in relation to all the people we have been talking about today, who have been ripped off by these companies. The Minister will also be aware that, on payday lending, the Government did not accept the argument that he is putting forward—that the Government should not intervene and set a cap—and did recognise the need to set a series of tests. Opposition Members would be incredibly sympathetic if he wanted to break his vow of libertarian conservatism and say, “Actually, there is a need to intervene because we see this predatory behaviour in this industry.” I want to press him. Is he saying that he would be opposed to learning the lessons from payday lending and to the Government’s stepping in and introducing proposals for a cap on the rent-to-own sector, despite the consequences of doing nothing, which we are seeing now?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady, although passionate, is not right when she says, “The Government did specifically this.” The Government put a duty on the FCA with regard to that part of the market. They also, at the same time, gave a power to the FCA to do something in parallel, in other parts of the broader consumer credit market, if it deemed that necessary.
Ultimately, individual organisations make their own commercial decisions on prices, interest rates and default fees for their products. However, the Government believe that it is in the interest of lenders to consider the impact on their customers and, of course, to treat them fairly.
On the affordability of credit, rent-to-own firms must fulfil a number of requirements. When the responsibility for regulating consumer credit transferred from the OFT to the FCA, the FCA turned key elements of the OFT’s irresponsible lending guidance into binding rules. Those are enforceable with the full range of FCA enforcement powers. They set out that a firm should assess the customer’s creditworthiness, having particular regard to the potential for the commitments to impact adversely on the consumer’s financial situation and taking into account information that the firm is or ought reasonably to be aware of at the time and the consumer’s ability to make repayments as they fall due. The FCA’s rules are aimed at strengthening consumer protection and are based on the simple principle that money should be lent only to a person who can afford to repay it. Firms are also provided with greater clarity on what is expected of them and the sanctions if they lend irresponsibly.
Rent-to-own firms, like all consumer credit businesses, are required to make affordability checks for consumers taking out an agreement. The FCA makes it clear that a firm should lend responsibly and should take reasonable steps to assess the customer’s ability to make repayments in a sustainable manner, without undue difficulties and without having to borrow further. Ultimately, credit should be extended to a consumer only if they can afford it. The extent and scope of affordability checks are determined by a number of factors, which include, as well as the financial position of the customer, their vulnerability and in particular whether the firm understands that the customer has some form of mental capacity limitation or reasonably suspects that to be so. Some of the casework examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys throw that requirement into sharp relief. In addition to that, on 23 February 2015 the FCA published a paper on consumer vulnerability and a practitioners’ pack to assist firms in addressing the needs of customers in vulnerable circumstances.
Some concern has been expressed that rent-to-own agreements are not always adequately explained to consumers before they enter into them. That point was made from the Opposition Benches. The FCA requires firms to provide adequate pre-contractual explanations to enable consumers to assess whether the proposed credit agreement suits their needs and financial situation. Consumers can compare the cash price quoted in the pre-contractual information with the price of equivalent goods elsewhere to decide on the best deal. That ensures that consumers have the ability to make the financial decision that best suits their needs.
The Government are aware that consumers are sometimes required to take out insurance and service deals when entering into a rent-to-own agreement and that that could cause consumer detriment. Although there is concern that those deals raise the total cost of an agreement, the Government have ensured that where insurance is required as a condition of credit, the cost of the insurance must be factored into the APR, so that consumers can make a comparison on the basis of total costs and make informed decisions about the agreement that they are entering into. Furthermore, when firms sell insurance products, they must do so in line with the FCA’s requirements about assessing consumers’ eligibility to claim on a product.
The reforms made to consumer regulation by the Government and the FCA have given consumers new protections, and the regulatory framework means that consumers will continue to be protected in the future. It is important that avenues of credit remain open to those who need them, while consumers are protected from harmful practices.
Stella Creasy
I have asked the Minister about the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the commitments given to hon. Members by BIS Ministers that these practices—the selling of warranties and insurance products—would be covered by consumer rights legislation. The things that he is saying do not quite match what those Ministers said. Can he clarify whether he has spoken to the Ministers in BIS about the Consumer Rights Act and its role in tackling the bundling up and selling of insurance products and warranties, and will he commit to raising that issue with the consumer rights implementation group? If nothing else, he could get that group to look at whether being required to buy an additional product when someone simply wants to buy the original product breaches basic consumer rights.
Damian Hinds
I will have to write to the hon. Lady about the details of the regulation on bundling. In general, price bundling in markets is not illegal, but on the specifics of this market I will have to get back to her.
The Government have set up the Money Advice Service, which provides a single point of debt advice for consumers and allows those who face problems with debt to obtain free and impartial money advice. This year, MAS will spend £47 million on debt advice, delivering through its third sector partners an increase of almost £9 million on the previous year.
It is important to take a joined-up approach to the provision of free debt advice. Following the independent review of MAS, the Government welcomed the creation of a debt advice steering group, which will help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of free debt advice provision by bringing together senior representatives of the debt advice charities, high street banks, water and energy bodies and devolved organisations.
Damian Hinds
The steering group will be an open forum to involve all relevant and interested parties, and I take on board the point that the hon. Lady makes. I wanted to come back to a point that she raised earlier, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys also mentioned: where the consumer stands in relation to part-paid goods. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 states that in a hire purchase agreement, a court order is required to repossess goods if a third of the total cost has been repaid. Furthermore, where 50% of the total price has been repaid, a consumer can return a product without penalty and the agreement will finish.
Stella Creasy
One thing that we see with such companies is that they move the goalposts with consumers. First, they do not tell consumers that a court order is required to repossess goods. Secondly, the amount that constitutes 50% moves, because of some of the charges applied. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that area? As he says, consumer protection exists, but because companies change how they lend to people, consumer rights are not being upheld.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is one thing to have rights, but another to know what they are. That is not restricted to the rent-to-own sector or to consumer credit, and organisations such as Citizens Advice have an important role to play in making that plain. It is an important part of disclosure for firms to make that known. The regulatory regime and enforcement are designed to provide confidence that that is happening in reality.
That brings me to my more general concluding point. We are in a new era, with a new framework. I pay tribute to Martin Wheatley and the FCA for the speed at which they have introduced a more positive framework. Many of us have taken an interest in consumer credit issues and detriments in the market over several years, and the FCA framework now contains a lot of what people have asked for. In addition, I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parts of the House who have taken a constant interest in the subject and kept it at the forefront of public policy debate.
None of the issues that we have talked about today is new. The leading home credit provider first came into being in Victorian times, catalogue lending has been with us for as long as anybody here can remember and rent-to-own shops existed long before 2010. Moreover, the market can and does change; we talked earlier about its ability to shape-shift. The Government have adopted a proportionate approach to the market. The hon. Lady suggested that I might have felt constrained by being in coalition between 2010 and 2015. I wonder what constrained her, or her colleagues in the Labour party, for the 13 years before 2010, when they did not do all the things that she is now demanding from the Government of today.
More broadly, I think that the approach has to be a judicious combination of financial education, sensible regulation and ensuring that alternatives are available. In all three of those areas during the past five years there has been a significant shift, with the inclusion of financial education on the national curriculum, the new FCA framework, Government support for the credit union sector and the accompanying regulatory change.
Rent-to-own is an important part of the consumer credit market. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is absolutely right to keep our focus on it, and we will continue the dialogue.
Consumer Rights Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Willott
We know that consumers in the private rented sector are especially concerned about the fees charged by letting agents, particularly when they are unexpected or unreasonably high. There are calls for a ban on letting agents charging fees to tenants, but I am concerned, as we discussed on the previous debate on Report, that an outright ban would simply increase the pressure on rents. Making agents publish their fees is a better approach, giving consumers the information they want and supporting good letting agents. Such transparency would deter double charging and enable tenants and landlords to shop around, which would encourage agents to offer competitive fees.
The vast majority of letting agents provide a good service to tenants and landlords, but we are determined to tackle the minority of rogue agents who offer a poor service. Although good agents already make information about their fees and charges readily available, the new clause will introduce, for the first time, a financial penalty when an agent fails to display their fees. We are introducing legislation that will require all letting agents and property managers to belong to an approved redress scheme. That will give tenants an effective way to address complaints about fees, as well as, more generally, when the tenant is not happy with the agent’s performance.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see the debate on the Consumer Rights Bill come back to the House because many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the impact of what the Minister calls unreasonably high fees. In relation to the Government’s proposal and our entirely reasonable new clause, the challenge for us all is to understand quite what damage such fees do to the private rented sector and how we can address those fees to give us a fair market in private rented accommodation.
I welcome the fact that the Government have now understood the case that the Opposition have been making, which is that we cannot ignore—try though the Government have in previous debates—the 9 million people in the private rented sector in this country. In particular, we must understand the impact of agency fees on people’s ability to keep a roof over their head, so it is worth thinking what kind of fees we are talking about. The Minister did not go into much detail, but it is worth reminding Members in the Chamber about the fees.
On average, tenants are forced to pay letting agents about £355 every single time they move. Indeed, some mystery shopping in my constituency has found average fees of £450, and Shelter has identified the eye-watering figure of £700 in total agency fees. Shelter has certainly found that one in seven of those using an agency is charged more than £500 a time, meaning that people have to find £500 every single time they move. That is a considerable sum, before we even consider the deposit and the rent. Such fees are putting huge pressure on people in the private rented sector, particularly in relation to their ability to make ends meet. Shelter’s research shows that 27% of those who have used a letting agency in the past three years have had to borrow or use a loan to pay the fees, and that 17% have had to cut down their spending on basic essentials, such as food or heating, to be able to cover them.
For the first day on Report, we tabled an amendment to recognise that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for an agent to take money from both the tenant and the landlord for the same transaction, and therefore to ban the laying of fees on tenants. In doing so, we were learning from the experience in Scotland. The Minister said, as she has again today, that banning fees will not make it cheaper for tenants, who will just end up paying higher rents through up-front fees.
In responding to our new clause 30, I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to tell us what she takes from the research done in Scotland, where such a provision was made in 2012, because the research shows that the reverse is true—that there is no evidence that banning agency fees leads to an increase in rents. Indeed, fewer than one in five letting agencies interviewed in Shelter’s research said that it had increased fees to landlords. In fact, taking away the conflict of interest has had no impact on the market, but has done everything to help on the cost of housing.
I note the comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has admitted that there is a problem with fees and has said that there is an issue about the length of tenancies. The Opposition have been making those arguments for some time. In relation to the Government new clauses, what is it about our arguments and the evidence—that taking away fees does not increase rents, but makes renting a home more affordable for people—that explains why the Government have not as yet fully come over to our side of the argument.
The Government new clauses include some admirable claims about transparency. We certainly support the idea that it is important for tenants to be aware of the fees that they might be charged. However, I have several questions about how the new clauses are drafted, because it is not clear how they will work in practice. I am sure that the Minister would argue that all her proposed new clauses must work in practice, not just in principle.
One new clause mentions that the description of a fee must be understandable, but will the Minister clarify quite what that means? Will she require agents to break fees down and, for example, to say whether they will charge for a credit check and for an inventory fee, as often happens? In my constituency, I have seen tenants charged a pet fee, so will there be a description of all the fees that might possibly be applied?
What does the Minister mean by “likely to be seen”? We have seen examples of agencies putting a list of their fees in the toilets of their offices for tenants to read. Under the Bill, would that be considered a place where such a list is likely to be seen? What redress would a tenant have if they had not had cause to use the facilities of a letting agency and had therefore not seen the information?
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I came across a case recently in which a tenancy was repeated. All that happened was that a copy of the original agreement was reprinted and sent off to be signed. There was all of about 30 pages of printing, which, even at the most expensive local high street printing outfit, would not amount to anywhere near the couple of hundred pounds that the agency was charging for that simple job.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the kind of repeat fees we are seeing, which any legislation must address. More importantly—this relates to the proposals that we have made—I would wager that the landlord was also charged in that transaction for the same amount of photocopying. Fees are clearly being charged when a contract is repeated and that needs to be addressed.
New clause 24 talks about how a fee can be calculated if the amount is not yet known. Will the Minister set out what protection will be available to consumers if they miscalculate the amount based on the information that is provided? How clear does the information of the letting agency have to be?
All the issues that I have raised relate to enforcement. New clause 28 provides the power to impose a £5,000 penalty. It would be very interesting to hear what kind of enforcement process the Minister envisages. We talked in Committee about the cuts to trading standards—the Cinderella service that does not even have enough buttons at the moment to address the many issues the Government expect it to address under the consumer rights legislation.
The Minister talked in passing about the letting agent redress scheme. I must pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hayter, who argued passionately for the redress scheme because of her experience of these issues. It is not clear to the Opposition quite what will happen. Will the Minister therefore set out what she thinks will happen if an agent does not display their fees clearly and what kind of enforcement action will be taken? She talked about issuing civil penalties. Will those penalties go to the tenant who has had to pay £1,300 for the photocopying to be repeated, but who was not told about that when they signed up to the letting agency?
All those questions speak to the fundamental challenge that we are dealing with, which is that information, although welcome, is not enough to deal with the fundamental problem of the impact that excessively high agency fees have on a person’s ability to rent a property. As we said in the previous debate on Report, it is a bit like telling someone who is tied to the train tracks what the timetable is for the trains. The fundamental issue that we have to deal with is the consequence of agents being able to charge tenants such fees.
That is why we tabled new clause 30. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is an entirely reasonable response to the Government new clauses. New clause 30 would do two things. First, it would require the Government to produce a report on
“the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies”.
I am sure that everybody in the House would welcome such a report, because it would at least give some depth to the conversations that we have all been having about this issue. Secondly, it would commit the Government to taking action to
“prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”
Surely, if fees are pushing people out of their homes and distorting the market in private rented accommodation, it is in the interests of all consumers and, indeed, landlords that we act.
I hope that the Minister will accept new clause 30 and commit the Government to truly tackling the issues in the private rented sector, including the impact of agency fees. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is not here because he, too, has argued that banning agency fees would somehow lead to higher rents. I look forward to the Minister responding to all those tenants in Scotland who have not found the banning of fees to be a negative experience. What does she think we can learn from that experience?
If the Minister does not yet accept the case for banning fees outright, does she accept that there are fees that can be detrimental and that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene? Alternatively, is she simply saying that if a letting agency wants to charge somebody £700 a time to renew their tenancy, it is fine, as long as they have told them about it? I am sure that is not her intention and that she recognises that people do not shop around for a letting agency: they shop around for a property to try to keep a roof above their family’s heads. Because such costs cause detriment to consumers, they are unacceptable. If the Minister does not accept that they cause detriment, I hope that she will at least accept our amendment that would provide that the Government should carry out research on this issue and commit to action if detriment is proved. Nine million people are waiting on the Minister’s every move to see whether they can keep a roof above their heads, not just in 2014 but in 2015 and beyond. Should we win the next election, we will take action if the Government will not do so now.
Jenny Willott
The irony of the hon. Lady’s last sentence is astounding, given that the Government are legislating to tackle this issue, but the previous Labour Government did not. The issue has not suddenly arisen in the last three years, and the Government have committed to tackling the minority of rogue landlords, something that her party did not do.
We are taking action to ensure that tenants have proper redress and a fair deal. We recognise that there are real issues with a minority of rogue landlords who do not treat tenants fairly, and that is why we are taking action. Today, we are ensuring transparency and openness on fees so that landlords and tenants can shop around. The hon. Lady mentioned the experience in Scotland and the recent Shelter report on the impact of banning fees. However, concerns have been raised that the Shelter report ignores the widespread non-compliance with the ban in Scotland. I have seen an estimate that some 25% of firms are still charging admin fees for tenants who move in, and a higher proportion are still charging other fees during the tenancy.
As the hon. Lady said, those agents that are complying have got around the fact that they cannot charge fees to tenants by, for example, raising landlords’ fees, but that has had an impact on rents in certain areas. Landlords are not absorbing the increase in fees, but passing it on to tenants through the rent. For example, in Edinburgh, rents went up by more than 5% and in Aberdeen by more than 6%—significantly higher increases than in England and Wales. The evidence is that the introduction of the ban north of the border has had a significant negative impact on tenants.
Stella Creasy
Can the Minister clarify that she disputes what Shelter has said—that any increase in rent is not related to the banning of agency fees—or that she has her own research? She is telling a very different story from the evidence of the research conducted by Shelter in Scotland, and the House may be confused by what she is saying as a result.
Jenny Willott
I have made it clear that we have concerns about the Shelter report because, for example, it ignores the widespread non-compliance that I mentioned. The evidence on rents is that they have risen faster in Scotland than they have in England and Wales.
The hon. Lady raised some questions about how fees would need to be broken down and what evidence would need to be provided. The regulations will make that clear. For example, a general administration fee would need to be broken down to show exactly what it covered. That information will therefore be available to tenants. The hon. Lady also asked whether repeat fees would be covered, and I can confirm that the fees associated with property management would also be covered, so they would need to be provided and published.
The hon. Lady asked how the provisions would operate. The Bill provides a power, and we will consult on and publish secondary legislation to ensure that the provision is as tight as it can be. We will ensure that information is available to tenants and landlords so that they can make a judgment on the most appropriate agent for their business. The legislation will be enforced by local authorities as they are involved in the licensing of landlords and also have the local knowledge about the agencies in their area. They are in the best place to enforce it and to ensure it is operating in the best interests of tenants.
Finally, we have said that we will review it after a year of operation to see how it is working and to ensure that it has made a difference to tenants. We do not want rents to go up, as that would cause widespread problems for, as the hon. Lady says, the large number of people who rent in the private sector. We want to protect those tenants. We do not want their rents to go up; we want them instead to get a fair deal from agencies and to be able to see what the charges are. We want openness and proper redress in place to ensure they receive a fair deal.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 24 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Letting agents to which the duty applies
‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “letting agent” means a person who engages in letting agency work (whether or not that person engages in other work).
(2) A person is not a letting agent for the purposes of sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) if the person engages in letting agency work in the course of that person’s employment under a contract of employment.
(3) A person is not a letting agent for the purposes of sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) if—
(a) the person is of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) the person engages in work of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Jenny Willott.)
This new Clause provides that the duty applies to a person who engages in letting agency work. Employees are exempt from the duty. The Secretary of State may make regulations exempting other persons or types of work.
New Clause 26
Fees to which the duty applies
‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “relevant fees”, in relation to a letting agent, means the fees, charges or penalties (however expressed) payable to the agent by a landlord or tenant—
(a) in respect of letting agency work carried on by the agent,
(b) in respect of property management work carried on by the agent, or
(c) otherwise in connection with—
(i) an assured tenancy of a dwelling-house in England, or
(ii) a dwelling-house in England that is, has been or is proposed to be let under an assured tenancy.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to—
(a) the rent payable to a landlord under a tenancy,
(b) any fees, charges or penalties which the letting agent receives from a landlord under a tenancy on behalf of another person,
(c) a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004, or
(d) any fees, charges or penalties of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.” —(Jenny Willott.)
This new Clause provides that the duty applies to fees payable in respect of letting agency work, property management work and other work done in connection with assured tenancies. The clause provides that certain payments are not fees for the purposes of the duty. The Secretary of State may make regulations to exempt other payments.
New Clause 27
Letting agency work and property management work
‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “letting agency work” means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from—
(a) a person (“a prospective landlord”) seeking to find another person wishing to rent a dwelling-house in England under an assured tenancy and, having found such a person, to grant such a tenancy, or
(b) a person (“a prospective tenant”) seeking to find a dwelling-house in England to rent under an assured tenancy and, having found such a dwelling-house, to obtain such a tenancy of it.
(2) But “letting agency work” does not include any of the following things when done by a person who does nothing else within subsection (1)—
(a) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;
(b) providing a means by which a prospective landlord or a prospective tenant can, in response to an advertisement or dissemination of information, make direct contact with a prospective tenant or a prospective landlord;
(c) providing a means by which a prospective landlord and a prospective tenant can communicate directly with each other.
(3) “Letting agency work” also does not include things done by a local authority.
(4) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “property management work”, in relation to a letting agent, means things done by the agent in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person where—
(a) that person wishes the agent to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises in England on the person’s behalf, and
(b) the premises consist of a dwelling-house let under an assured tenancy.”—(Jenny Willott.)
This new Clause defines letting agency work and property management work. It provides that letting agency work does not include publishing advertisements, enabling landlords and tenants to communicate directly with one another or things done by a local authority.
New Clause 28
Enforcement of the duty
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) impose functions on a local authority in connection with the enforcement of the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees);
(b) make provision for civil penalties to be imposed in respect of a breach of that duty.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may provide for the amount of a civil penalty to be determined by the person imposing it, subject to subsection (3).
(3) The amount of a civil penalty that a person may impose by virtue of regulations under subsection (1)(b) may not exceed £5,000 for each breach of the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the figure for the time being specified in subsection (3).
(5) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must make provision about the procedure for imposing a civil penalty and, in particular, must require a person imposing a penalty to give the person on whom it is imposed a written notice stating—
(a) the amount of the penalty,
(b) the reasons for imposing it, and
(c) the date by which and manner in which it is to be paid.
(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(b)—
(a) may give a person on whom a civil penalty is imposed a right to request a review of the decision to impose the penalty, and
(b) must give such a person a right to appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.
(7) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) must, in particular, specify the grounds on which a person may appeal against a decision to impose a civil penalty, which must include the grounds—
(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact,
(b) that the decision was wrong in law, and
(c) that the decision was unreasonable (including that the amount of the penalty is unreasonable).
(8) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may, in particular—
(a) specify the time within which a person must request a review of, or appeal against, a decision to impose a civil penalty;
(b) require a person to request a review before appealing;
(c) specify the grounds on which a person may request a review;
(d) make provision about the procedure for a review;
(e) make further provision about reviews and appeals (including provision as to the powers available on a review or appeal).
(9) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may make provision about the recovery of a civil penalty, including—
(a) provision for the person by whom it is imposed to recover the penalty as a civil debt;
(b) provision for the penalty to be recoverable, on the order of a court, as if payable under a court order.
(10) Sums received by a local authority under regulations under this section may be used by the authority for the purposes of any of its functions.
(11) A local authority on whom functions are conferred by regulations under this section must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about—
(a) compliance by letting agents with the duty in section (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees);
(b) the exercise of those functions.” —(Jenny Willott.)
This new Clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about enforcement of the duty. The penalty for non-compliance will be a civil penalty of up to £5,000. The regulations must provide for a right of appeal against the penalty to the First-tier Tribunal.
New Clause 29
Supplementary provisions
‘(1) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions)—
“assured tenancy” means a tenancy which is an assured tenancy for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988 except where—
(a) the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing, or
(b) the tenancy is a long lease;
“dwelling-house” may be a house or part of a house;
“landlord” includes a person who proposes to be a landlord under a tenancy and a person who has ceased to be a landlord under a tenancy because the tenancy has come to an end;
“long lease” means a lease which—
(c) is a long lease for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, or
(d) in the case of a shared ownership lease (within the meaning given by section 7(7) of that Act), would be a lease within paragraph (a) of this definition if the tenant’s total share (within the meaning given by that section) were 100%;
“tenant” includes a person who proposes to be a tenant under a tenancy and a person who has ceased to be a tenant under a tenancy because the tenancy has come to an end.
(2) In sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) “local authority” means—
(a) a county council in England,
(b) a district council,
(c) a London borough council,
(d) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as local authority, or
(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3) References in sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) to a tenancy include a proposed tenancy and a tenancy that has come to an end.
(4) References in sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) to anything which is payable, or which a person is liable to pay, to a letting agent include anything that the letting agent claims a person is liable to pay, regardless of whether the person is in fact liable to pay it.
(5) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) the first regulations to be made under section (Enforcement of the duty)(1)(b), or
(b) regulations under section (Enforcement of the duty)(4),
is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) other than one to which subsection (6) applies is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions)—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may make provision generally or in relation to specific cases.
(9) Regulations under sections (Duty of letting agents to publicise fees), (Letting agents to which the duty applies), (Fees to which the duty applies), (Letting agency work and property management work), (Enforcement of the duty) and (Supplementary provisions) may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”—(Jenny Willott.)
This new Clause provides definitions of the terms used in the new clauses and sets out the procedures for making regulations.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Letting Agents: Report
Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report, and lay a copy of the report before Parliament, on—
(a) the consumer detriment caused to tenants by letting agent fees and the impact this has on the ability of tenants to secure and maintain tenancies, and
(b) the steps that the government intends to take to prohibit fees that cause detriment to tenants.”—(Stella Creasy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stella Creasy
I beg to move amendment 1, page 51, line 9, at end insert—
“1A A term which requires a consumer to pay a charge for, or be liable for, an element of a good or service that another party has also been charged for in the course of the same transaction.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 51, line 15, at end insert—
“2A A term which relies upon any bill of sale, as defined in section 3 (Construction of Act) of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882, to reduce the level of consumer protection in relation to contracts concerning consumer credit.”
Amendment 3, page 51, line 18, at end insert—
“3A A term that directly causes financial detriment to the consumer such that it can reasonably be seen to alter the capacity of the consumer to pay the costs of the contract, where the contract is for a financial service.”
Amendment 4, page 53, line 2, at end insert—
“20A A term which either—
(a) requires or encourages a consumer to contract third party services without informing them of their right to seek independent advice; or
(b) seeks to limit a consumer’s access to independent advice regarding third party contracts where there is a potential conflict of interest for the third party involved.”
Amendment 19, page 53, line 2, at the end insert—
“20A A term which has the object or effect of permitting a trader to block, restrict or otherwise hinder the access of a consumer to any lawful electronic communications network or electronic communications service on the basis of an unreasonable or unusual definition of ‘internet access’, ‘data’, ‘webaccess’ or similar word or phrase. Nothing in this prohibition shall affect filters for the purpose of child protection. Electronic communications network or electronic communication service shall have the same meaning as in the Communications Act 2003.”
Amendment (a) to amendment 19, after “trader”, insert
“engaged in the provision of fixed broadband internet access or mobile internet services.”
Stella Creasy
I shall speak to all the amendments in the group, which are about unfair contract terms. Unfairness is such a central concept to British values, I will wager, that it provides an apt discussion point for this week alone. All the amendments deal with where a market is stacked against one party and, we would argue, both miss out as a result. When service providers exploit a lack of information or collude to distort behaviour, it is not just the public who are badly treated: competition is stifled, creativity and innovation are weakened and, above all, the consumer is ripped off. The amendments thus reflect some of the problems affecting markets that we see in Britain and deal with what more could be done to make a stronger consumer rights framework that would give the public the tools to be able to prevent rather than have to deal with the problems that come from these distorted behaviours. There are four different issues, but we consider them all to be part of the conflicts of interest that cause detriment to the consumer.
Amendment 1 refers to what we call “double charging”, and particularly the behaviour of estate agents. We all know that buying a house is one of the biggest costs any of us will face in our lifetime. An English man or woman’s home is their castle, but it is often a very expensive one. The cost of buying a house has gone up so substantially in my constituency that it is now 30% more than it was a year ago—a source of extreme concern for many. Indeed, we know that the average home is worth eight times the average wage and that it can take 20 years for a family to save for a deposit. A million homes were bought in the UK last year, and prices have risen across the country by 8%, even if they have not risen as much as in some of our London areas. That is why the Governor of the Bank of England has warned that the biggest risk to the economy stems from the fact that people are getting mortgages—sometimes four or more times their salaries—that they cannot sustain. Housing is indeed a bubble underpinning our economy and leaving it in an incredibly precarious position.
The Government’s housing Bill will provide 15,000 houses, but people in my constituency know that we need to double that and then some, which is why Labour are proposing to build 200,000 houses, getting us closer to where we need to get to in order to deal with the pressures that people are experiencing. This amendment speaks, too, to some of the other charges that people face when buying a property. We may disagree about how many houses need to be built, but I am sure we would all want the housing property market to be as fair and open as possible so that it does not involve more expenses that mean people needing an even higher mortgage or an even higher level of debt—particularly in the form of the personal loans that people are taking out to pay the sort of fees necessary when they start ownership of a new property.
The amendment would deal with what the property ombudsman has called an “emerging commercial practice”—one that means that people such as estate agents, who benefit from the increase in demand for housing by exploiting the pressure on the country’s housing supply, reap the benefits. The practice involves a contract that we believe is ripping off consumers—both buyers and sellers—and therefore needs addressing. It is called “double charging” if the estate agent applies a fee to both the buyer and the seller of a property on the same transaction.
Let me explain the problem for the benefit of Members who have not yet observed the practice in their constituencies. It often results from the process of “sale by informal tender”. House owners are asked to accept sealed bids for their properties. Increasingly, estate agents are then charging successful bidders a “finder’s fee”, which, in some cases, is between 2% and 2.5% of the property fee plus VAT. According to the Consumers Association, an estate agent’s commission should normally be between 1% and 2%. Moreover, sellers themselves are paying to market their properties. Buyers must find the cost of the additional fee in order to bid.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Is not the ability to charge two parties to a potential transaction nothing less than a direct conflict of interests? It should not be possible to owe a duty to a buyer and a seller in equal measure. An agent has one client, and it must remain that way.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Let me give an example of the way in which this conflict of interests operates in practice. The example was given to us by a young first-time buyer who, because of her restricted ability to buy a property in the area where she wanted to live, accepted that she would have to take part in a “sale by tender” arrangement, and that she would have to pay an introductory fee of 2.5% of the sale price of the property. She made an offer of £258,000 for a house that was well within the guide price, and therefore committed herself to paying about £6,000 in fees to the estate agent. Her offer was accepted as the highest offer in the sealed-bid process. She then contacted us to say that her offer had not been accepted by the seller, and the agent was putting pressure on her to up her offer to £262,000. If she did not do so, the property would be put back on the market for another “sale by tender” exercise, because the seller wanted more. That was despite the fact that she was the one who had committed herself to paying the fee that the estate agent wanted to charge.
Some Members may think that that is an indication of the overheated London housing market, and the fact that house prices in my constituency have risen by 30% reflects that overheating. However, we are hearing about examples of double charging throughout the country. In the north-west, for instance, a gentleman who tried to buy a house for £45,000 was told that, as well as finding the £45,000 and the fee for the conveyancing, he would have to find £2,880 in order to pay the introductory fee to the estate agent. In the south-west, an estate agent wanted an introductory fee of nearly £6,000 plus VAT from someone who wanted to buy a house for £296,000. I must stress that the sellers of the properties, who do not benefit from the additional £6,000, are also paying a fee for the service.
The Minister had admitted that double charging is a potentially worrying emerging trend which seems to be on the increase, but at every stage in the Bill when we have sought to outlaw this conflict of interests, the Government have voted against our attempts, although the property ombudsman has agreed that the new approach to selling properties
“can also potentially disadvantage the seller. He”—
or she—
“will no doubt have to agree to accept only prospective buyers that follow the agent’s agreement with those prospective buyers and if a prospective buyer declines to submit to paying the fee, he”—
or she—
“will be out of the picture and the seller will have lost an opportunity to sell his house.”
That is what the property ombudsman has told us about the practice.
Robert Flello
No doubt the Minister will say that this is an issue of the market, that other estate agents will not do this, and that it will all come out in the wash. The point is, however, that someone who goes out and looks for a house and then finds the one that he wants cannot choose the agent who is dealing with the property. That is why it is so crucial for us to sort this out now, rather than waiting until every single estate agent does the same, as though the market will somehow adjust itself.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I admit that I have been deeply concerned about campaigning on this issue and for our proposals, because I think that it is a bit like telling turkeys how to avoid Christmas. The more we make it clear to estate agents that the Government are currently letting them get away with this behaviour, the more they will engage in it. Indeed, I am sad to report that since February, when we began expressing concern about double charging, an increasing number of estate agent chains throughout the country have been using “sale by tender” processes involving the introductory fee. I must emphasise that we are objecting not to sale by tender per se, but to the fact that people are being charged a fee to be introduced to a property. That is what is causing such concern.
When I first observed that Douglas Allen in Walthamstow was engaging in the practice, I thought that perhaps we had just one rogue estate agent. I hoped that when Phil and Kirstie came to Walthamstow recently to film “Location, Location, Location”, they would take a dim view of it, but I am sorry to say that we are now hearing of cases at Your Move, Ellis and Co. and Reeds Rains. A number of estate agents are picking up the idea that applying such fees is acceptable behaviour, and the damage that that is doing to the interests of both sellers and buyers is growing.
There is a question for us here. We can see that the practice is distorting the housing market. If we want a free and fair market, these conflicts of interests must be resolved, so that sellers can be confident that buyers are always acting in their interests, and buyers can be confident that when they participate in a bid such as this, it is taken seriously. Should we act, or should we wait until the damage to consumers’ interests becomes worse? We tabled amendment 1 in order to make charging two parties a fee to the same transaction a term in a contract that can be challenged on the basis that it is unfair. We believe—as does the property ombudsman—that such charges are indeed unfair, and should be open to challenge.
This comes at a time when there is widespread concern about the estate agent industry, full stop. I accept that it may be another “British value” to complain about estate agents, just as people complain about traffic wardens and, indeed, politicians. We all recognise that we are not immune to that moment in the pub on a Friday night. However, we know that there are serious concerns because of the nature of the housing market. I have been contacted by people who have been told by estate agents that they cannot have access to the lists of housing for sale unless they commit themselves to taking out a mortgage through them, or using their financial advisers or lawyers. That is another clear conflict of interests for the seller.
We need a tough regulatory regime to ensure that we have a fair housing market in England and Wales. We continue to be concerned about the fact that the Government have delegated the monitoring of all estate agents in England and Wales to Powys county council’s trading standards body. A Welsh rural council has been charged with the task of examining the behaviour of nearly half a million estate agents. It should be taking account of the blatant and rampant exploitation of the demand for housing that these charges represent, but when people affected by them have contacted Powys, they have been met with indifference about whether it should be dealing with the issue. The council took over only in April—this may be a new moment—but it is clear that we need to take stronger action before the situation gets out of control.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is highlighting the way in which the Government have contracted out different aspects of trading standards to various local authorities. Has she looked into the number of houses that have been for sale in Powys, and considered how experience in Powys can possibly inform an intelligent approach to the London housing market, which is totally different?
Stella Creasy
I think that there is genuine concern about whether Powys county council is equipped for the task. This is not necessarily just about its trading standards: after all, this is a council that has gone through three cabinets in as many months, and has had problems with the setting of its budget. Some have suggested that it needs to put its own house in order before putting our house sales in order. Certainly, double charging is a great example of the sort of problem that we would expect an effective regulator to be able to deal with. There is a clear conflict of interests. The fees being charged are clearly causing detriment to consumers.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the property ombudsman since we raised this issue with her, but I note that as yet there is no evidence of any progress in resolving this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) pointed out, the number of agents using double charging in contracts is escalating. Many of my constituents who have been hit by these contracts have asked whether their lawyers can challenge them. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and give consumers the opportunity to challenge these sorts of contracts, and to give them the legal protection that enables them to say, “This is fundamentally unfair and it infringes my rights”, and, indeed, to give sellers the opportunity to challenge them. Under these contracts, buyers and sellers are told that they cannot communicate with each other; otherwise, the offer that has been made is void. A seller may therefore be unaware of an offer that somebody wishes to make for their property, and that has to be cut back because the buyer must also include the fee. I was surprised to hear from the estate agents in Walthamstow that they always achieve 102% of the asking price of their properties, and 2% was, perhaps unsurprisingly, the fee they were charging people to buy their houses. “Who would have thunk it”—who would have thought that there would be such a close correlation?
I hope the Minister will accept that there is a genuine issue here that needs to be dealt with, and the sooner, the better. We know the pressures on our housing market are not going to go away any time soon, but although we might argue about the numbers of houses that need to be built, we can surely all agree that this is a conflict of interests that needs to be addressed. If, again, the Minister will not accept this amendment and this course of action, I hope she will set out how she will take action on this issue herself, so house buyers across the country do not have to find the extra thousands of pounds just to pay the nice fat fee for the agent.
The other amendments we have tabled in this group also address challenges we believe are creating problems in our economy, in particular through these conflicts of interest. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 relate to conflicts of interest around services, in particular debt management and log book loans. The Minister will know of the Opposition’s concern about the personal debt bubble that underpins much of our economy, and in particular the number of people who are over-indebted. We know from the Money Advice Service that 9 million people in our country are already over-indebted, and half of these families live on incomes of under £20,000. This fragile situation has arisen despite our having had for more than five years the lowest interest rates in 300 years. It is likely that interest rates will start to rise, and personal debt may well rise at the same time—after all, wages are still not keeping pace with prices—so it is all the more important that people can access credit, debt advice and debt management services in an affordable fashion.
Amendment 2 deals with the problems caused by log book loans. Members who served on the Committee will be familiar with the Opposition’s determination to reform this outdated and outmoded form of credit. There are widespread problems: more than 1,000 consumers complained about these loans to the Office of Fair Trading, and they were complaining about losses of over £1.5 million. Many of them come from the fact that these loans are based on bill of sale agreements, a Victorian type of contract that does not include modern consumer protection. Again, the Government have repeatedly voted against our proposals to reform bill of sale agreements and therefore end this outdated and quirky practice that is causing so much detriment. The Minister stated that there may well be an argument for updating the legislation, but that this is not the Bill to do it in. Those of us who saw from the title of the Bill that it was about consumer rights and protecting consumer interests were, of course, rather concerned by that, but let me point her to the concerns of the Financial Conduct Authority and Citizens Advice, which also want to see bill of sale agreements reformed.
Christopher Woolard, director of policy, risk and research at the FCA, states:
“People who use logbook loans are often in difficult circumstances with few other borrowing options…Logbook lenders have borrowers over a barrel. People don’t realise their car can be seized if they fall behind in repayments, with lenders often forcing borrowers to pay large amounts to keep their vehicle when they can’t afford to.”
Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, argues:
“The logbook industry is still in the dark ages and has been getting away with lawless practices.”
Its own analysis of log book loan cases found that 14% had experienced harsh debt collection practices, almost a third were not treated fairly or appropriately by the lender, and nearly 20% had not understood the terms of the loan clearly.
It is inexcusable to leave this outmoded form of credit arrangement available for lenders to use, and for them to exploit people in this way, particularly as we know that increasing numbers of people are going to need consumer credit in the years ahead because of the debts they have. We cannot understand why the Minister will not make progress on this issue. I believe she does understand that log book loans need to be reformed and that the case we are making—that bill of sale agreements have no place in a modern consumer protection landscape—so why does she feel that that should not be part of this Bill? We urge her to look very closely at our amendment, which would simply bring bill of sale agreements under modern consumer protection laws and, again, give consumers the right to challenge any agreement that does not uphold those laws. Indeed, it would be a sad indictment of all the work she has done on the other parts of the Bill and all the consumer protection laws in them if she were to say there would be a get-out clause in other respects.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Ministry of Defence has approved a particular policy under the banner of PAX that prescribes a single point of reference for legal advice and does not give members of our armed forces freedom of choice in that respect? Is it not reprehensible that we are in that situation?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend has just illustrated why I believe him to be the expert on this issue. I hope that he will contribute to the debate to explain why this concern about independent advice is so important. He is right about upholding the need for independent advice.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak in this debate, so let me say a little about net neutrality, and our amendment to amendment 19. I recognise that this is a new and evolving debate. Our discussions have ranged from the Victorian bill of sale to the contemporary net neutrality, both of which reflect this stress over conflicts of interest. For those Members of this House who have not yet had the chance to watch the viral videos about net neutrality, let me explain the concern. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and Governments should treat all data on the internet equally. They should not discriminate or charge by user, content, site, platform, or application. In layman’s terms that means that, whether we are looking at iPlayer, Sky on the Go or Netflix, there would be equal access to services. There would be no speed differential in accessing them.
In America, some broadband and internet providers have been exploring the idea of charging companies different rates for providing their services. That means that they could offer access to some websites at a faster rate than others, and therefore change the way in which consumers access them. The fear is that that would create a two-tier internet, because it will limit the number of sites that consumers can access with ease, and the number of companies that can access and operate services equally. In particular, if large companies were to use their financial muscle, or their internet provision, to restrict access to their competitors or to new entrants to the market, it could limit creativity and innovation in the provision of services. An internet without net neutrality moves huge market power to those who are the gatekeepers to our online services. It is little wonder that 100 companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have expressed concern about this issue. Indeed, “father of the internet” Tim Berners-Lee, who was rather unfairly described as a web developer recently, has argued that there is a real concern. He says:
“Unless we have an open, neutral internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It’s not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it.”
We welcome the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but we are concerned that the way in which it has been drafted may inadvertently imply that those sites that are providing pay-per-view services, such as Netflix, would be required also to provide access to some of their competitors, and I am sure that that was not what he intended. We have tabled a clarifying amendment to make it clear that we are talking about those services that provide access to the internet, rather than content.
It would be useful to hear from the Minister about what discussions she has had with her colleagues on the issue of net neutrality and about what action she is taking to ensure that consumers’ interests in the operation of net architecture are being upheld so that we do not have the concerns and challenges experienced by America. In particular, does she feel that existing protocols are strong enough to protect the interests of consumers and avoid competition issues between content providers, and has she done an assessment of the impact on consumers in the UK of a possible two-tier internet?
We have here some very different but interlinked issues around conflicts of interest, freedom of markets and consumer interest, and an effective piece of consumer rights legislation should provide consumers with the tools with which they can mount a challenge to any of them. We hope the Minister will accept our amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is about applying clarity in what is meant to the list of unfair contract terms that would give consumers the right to challenge issues in court. I therefore hope that the House will support them accordingly.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I seek to restrict myself to speaking to amendment 19, which I tabled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for what she said and for her general support for the thrust of my amendment. In the spirit of that cross-party co-operation, I should also make it clear that I am perfectly happy to support her amendment to my amendment. It is not my intention to press my amendment to a Division, but if the hon. Lady decides to press hers, I will of course support her, because her amendment does exactly what I intended my own to do. I hope that it will not come to that, because I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government accept there is an issue, understand it and say that they will do something to resolve it. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say before we make any decisions along those lines.
Over the past 30 years, competition in the telecommunications industry has gone from a monopoly, through a duopoly to what is widely regarded now as one of the greatest success stories of privatisation, with the UK having one of the most vibrant and competitive markets in the world.
Additionally, the internet has become an essential part of our national infrastructure, transforming the way we work, play, gather information, communicate and trade. The internet provides the underlying infrastructure for many thousands of businesses and has slashed the cost of global communication.
In 2010, the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said that they were supportive of open internet, which I hope is still the case. The reality is that some major fixed-line internet service providers and mobile network operators have not participated with the major industry-level agreement towards meeting that objective.
The success of the internet is based on global interoperability—the ability for anyone to interact with any legal internet site anywhere in the world. That has created new opportunities, businesses and jobs, while also reducing costs for consumers. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that an open internet is vital for the future economic, social and political health of our nation. New services are coming online at an incredible rate, and it is important that this vibrant sector is able to develop as society becomes more mobile and people’s habits change.
It is vital that organisations controlling access to the internet do not abuse their position by discriminating against legal services, data, traffic and content for commercial or political purposes, and from a protectionist perspective. Although telecommunications providers should be allowed to use certain traffic management techniques to manage the integrity of their network, it should not be at the detriment of rival services purely for anti-competitive reasons.
Over the past year, I have been made aware of increasing evidence that certain internet service providers are undertaking various marketing and operational practices that are distorting a competitive market, creating consumer harm, hurting a number of specific internet industries and stifling innovation. The activity includes blocking internet services that compete with their own on purely commercial grounds; not communicating to customers clearly at the point of sale that they offer only restricted access to the internet; and refusing to participate in the Government-supported pan-industry code of practice, which seeks to uphold open internet principles and which has been signed by some of the largest players, including BT, O2, Sky and 3. I believe that that verges on mis-selling. The lack of transparency and clarity that has persisted in the market has allowed consumers to be deceived by the practice of selling internet access when in fact significant parts of the internet cannot be accessed under the terms and conditions of some price plans.
It seems like the voluntary ways of ensuring greater transparency in providing internet and telephony services have failed. There have been clear examples where certain operators, particularly in the mobile sectors, have misled their consumers by claiming to offer internet access, or UK internet, when some legal internet services are not available within the package that has been provided. In other cases, the small print—when I say small print I mean it, as one would need binoculars to see some of the terms and conditions—outlines extra costs that the consumer would face if they dared to use the internet they have paid for to access services that compete with their provider’s own.
The fact that any operator is able to offer a product advertised with “internet access” and only have to clarify this policy in the small print is unacceptable. Unknowing customers who use popular services such as Skype, WhatsApps or Viber could see their service suspended but continue to be held responsible for paying their bills. That lack of transparency and clarity on these issues is totally unfair to these unknowing customers, and it continues, as consumers are in many cases unable to leverage competitive pressure because it is difficult to understand whether or not certain traffic types are allowed, blocked or just charged additionally. Ofcom’s consumer guide on internet traffic management from 2013 outlined the fact that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices undertaken by internet service providers and whether such practices would affect specific internet services that they used. How can consumers make an effective and informed choice if they are not fully aware of the practices of their internet service provider or mobile provider, and the potential of those practices to inhibit certain services?
Jenny Willott
That responsibility has only just been transferred to the FCA, and it is working with credit companies that must register with it. I believe that those companies start registering on 1 October, which gives them time to ensure that they comply with the regulations. From that date, therefore, the FCA will start to process licence applications. At the moment it is a little premature to answer the hon. Lady’s question, but the issue will be raised later in the year and I am sure she will ask Ministers at that point.
There are concerns about the way logbook loans operate and their impact on consumers. Consumers will be far better protected under the FCA regime than under the old system. Logbook loan providers are now required to meet the standards that the FCA expects of lenders, including making thorough affordability checks and providing adequate pre-contractual explanations to consumers. They are also subject to the FCA’s high-level principles, which include the overarching requirement to “treat customers fairly”.
Stella Creasy
I know the Minister has logbook loans companies in her constituency. Given what she is saying, why will she not support our amendment, which simply states that all borrowers should be treated equally and be able to have modern consumer contracts—the sorts of things she mentioned with the FCA? Why leave a loophole for bill of sale agreements?
Jenny Willott
If the hon. Lady gives me a chance I will come to that point.
As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) highlighted, logbook loans have been defined by the FCA as “higher risk activities”. As such, they will be in the first phase to require the full authorisation I mentioned, and they will face closer supervision and higher regulatory costs as a result. The Government have also ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action wherever its binding rules are breached. For example, there is no limit on the fines it can levy, and—crucially—it can force firms to provide redress to customers. It also has flexible rule-making powers, so if it finds further problems, it will not hesitate to take action. Indeed, the FCA has said that it is
“putting logbook lenders on notice”
because it is concerned about that issue. Furthermore, the FCA’s new rules give it
“the power to tackle any firm found not putting customers’ interests first”.
Treasury Ministers have asked the Law Commission to look at how best to reform the Bills of Sale Act 1878. As the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Makerfield mentioned, the legislation underpinning logbook loans is extremely old, lengthy and complex, and the Government believe that the Law Commission is best placed to undertake a thorough assessment of how to bring it up to date. The hon. Member for Makerfield raised concerns about how long the process might take and suggested that it had been kicked into the long grass. I would like to reassure her that the Law Commission has responded favourably to the Treasury’s request for the review, and will confirm its work programme in the near future .
Stella Creasy
I add my congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, to those of other hon. Members. Indeed, there is nothing like a dame. [Interruption.] Come on, somebody had to say it.
I do not know where to start with what the Minister has just set out. Loophole after loophole seems to be being built into this legislation, with the proviso that someone else will pick up the pieces. The Minister hopes that it will be various other regulators, but it is clearly the consumer who will be ripped off instead. I can see from the face of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that he too was disappointed, and I fear that it is time rather than intent that will mean we cannot make much progress today. I urge the Minister to watch the John Oliver video that is going round the interweb, if only to understand the real concern about net neutrality. I certainly hope that our colleagues in the other place will make some progress on this. The idea that at point of sale we can defend such a fundamental principle as free speech does not cut the mustard.
On debt management companies and log book loans, the Minister refers to the Financial Conduct Authority, leaving it to pick up the pieces from legislation that is antiquated and outdated, which at some unspecified time the Law Commission may look into. It is not good enough. We know that millions of people are in debt to such legal loan sharks. We know that the debt management industry is profiting as debt in this country goes up, not down. The right thing to do would be to get the consumer credit landscape to work for that problem, rather than to ask somebody else to deal with it, whether that is the Financial Conduct Authority or the Law Commission.
Again, this is the Consumer Rights Bill. A bill of sale is a consumer contract. There is no justification in the modern world for leaving them in place. The Minister is fond of saying that the Labour Government had 13 years to do something about it. That Government were on the verge of outlawing bill of sale agreements. I hope the Minister will change her mind.
The amendment that we must press to a vote is amendment 1 for those Members who were not here earlier to hear about estate agents charging both the buyer and the seller a fee. The Minister accepts that there is a concern. We are talking about fees of thousands of pounds for our constituents to buy a property—a fee that distorts the price that a seller will get. Yet again, the Minister calls for a loophole to be written in and calls for the property ombudsman to monitor the situation, when it is clearly a conflict of interest for an estate agent to act for both the buyer and the seller at the same time.
Our constituents will rightly ask us what we are doing when we see these clear breaches of contract law taking place. Simply saying, as the Minister does, “Well, we’re going to monitor the number of complaints” is a green light for estate agents to undertake such practices. That is compounded by the fact that all estate agents in most of our constituencies are monitored from a rural Welsh constituency by Powys county council. It cannot understand how these half a million people are behaving, or how we reached the stage when a fee of thousands of pounds could be applied. There is complacency about a clear rip-off that our constituents are facing. [Interruption.]
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) says, “Get on with it.” There are people in my constituency paying £6,000 or £7,000 as a fee. The Minister says we had 13 years. The present Government have had four years. We have given an example of how they could do something about it. The Government are failing to make progress, yet again, and all our constituents miss out. I fear for the Minister when one of his constituents comes to him with one of those contracts, under which they are paying £6,000 or £7,000 to an estate agent as a fee to buy a property under sale of tender, and he justifies doing nothing about it.
This Bill is an opportunity to make progress. We on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] The Minister comments that I was in diapers when he became an MP, but I am old enough to recognise when there is a rip-off to be dealt with—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Will the hon. Lady sit down, please. Minister, I hope you did not say that. You have just entered the Chamber and you have been shouting since you sat down. It is not in order to speak to any hon. Member at the Dispatch Box. Members need to calm down a bit, please.
Stella Creasy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to wind up.
I know that house buying arouses a lot of passion, but it arouses even more passion when people get ripped off by an estate agent. It is clear that the Government do not support an amendment that would make progress in tackling the problem, which occurs across the country. They are all noise and no action. The Opposition want to see action on estate agents who are ripping people off. I hope Members on the Government Benches who have seen it in their constituency and who fear the impact that it is having on the price of houses will join us in the Lobby in voting for amendment 1.
Stella Creasy
It is fascinating finally to come to the end of consideration of the Bill in this Chamber.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand to be corrected, but I thought that those who wanted to speak on Third Reading did so before the shadow spokesperson. Am I wrong?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
You are wrong, yes. The Minister opens Third Reading, and the Opposition Front Bencher responds; we then hear from other participants. If we have enough time, and it is relevant to do so, we then hear the wind-ups. Do not worry—I will not forget you.
Stella Creasy
I am on tenterhooks to hear what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has to say. Thanks to our consideration of the Bill, I am aware of my right to a return and a repeat performance if I do not think the skill and service is satisfactory; he should be aware of that.
Whereas poppadoms are not to be shared, I have feedback—the breakfast of champions, as it was once called—to share on the Bill and whether it works. Does it pass the Ronseal test—does it do what it says on the tin? The Bill says that it is there to
“Amend the law relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests”.
Certainly, as I hope I have just displayed, during our consideration of the Bill we learned what our rights will be: we will have the right to have legislation written with reasonable care and skill, and provided at a reasonable time and price to us all. The rights of our consumers—our constituents—to remedy and redress when they feel that we are not providing that are somewhat limited. That is why they rely on us as Opposition Members to hold the Government to account. However, our role is not simply to intervene, or identify injustice as it affects our constituents, but to act on it. That is what we have tried to do in proceedings on the Bill.
At the heart of this is the question of rights. Does the Bill give consumers the rights that they need if they are to act for themselves? That has been our central concern. In that, we were influenced by the words of the Mayor of London—who knows what else he will be in future?—who once said:
“The dreadful truth is that when people come to see their MP, they have run out of better ideas.”
If the Bill had been well written, it would have given people rights that would have meant that they did not have to come to us, their MPs, with such regularity with all the stories of consumer detriment that we heard about during proceedings on the Bill. A really robust Consumer Rights Bill would empower the British public, giving them the rights and the confidence that they need to be able to choose the goods and services that they desire. Under that test, the public could demand a refund on the Bill, for as we saw only today, loophole after loophole remains, and it is consumers who will have to pay the price.
The Minister talks of a consumer toolkit, but that toolkit has a blunt Stanley knife and a broken hammer in it. Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, the Government have failed to grasp how giving the public access to the information, advocacy and redress that they need to shape services to meet desired outcomes would be a better idea, in terms of dealing with markets and services when the odds are stacked against them. Indeed, one of the things we have not done so far is set out what a market that is not working looks like or what the problems are.
In setting out our concerns on Third Reading, let me be clear about where our amendments came from. We need to recognise that a market is not working when information is not flowing freely between actors, whether they be consumers or businesses, such that they are not able to make informed choices. A market is not working when companies use their advantage to crowd out new competitors, collude on prices or, indeed, create a monopoly. Such a market may also result in unintended consequences because of the behaviour of others. The result is always the same: consumers miss out when markets do not work.
We have attempted to amend the Bill in this House and I am sure my colleagues in the other place will continue to do so in order to address some of those problems. Many markets in the UK do not meet the metrics of success whereby information flows freely and there is competition on creativity and innovation—not exploitation of captured consumers who have little option but to pay over the odds—and where the reasonable care and skill test can truly be applied.
At every stage of this Bill, colleagues throughout the House have raised issues that reflect those concerns about markets, including ticket touting, rip-off estate agent fees, copycat websites, logbook loans, product recall and even net neutrality. Every example involved scams and sharp practices, yet this Bill will not make progress in protecting the interests of consumers. As we have consistently been told by the Minister, that is outside the scope of the Bill and a matter for the mysterious implementation group, whose inner workings are still a secret to many of us.
At every single turn, the Minister has claimed that someone or something else can act. She has said that so often that we think it would be worth renaming the Bill the “computer says no” Bill. That may be an effective phrase for coalition government, but it is also a recipe to rip off consumers.
Despite the Minister’s best efforts to tell us, “There’s nothing to see here,” it has become clear during the course of our work that this Bill reaches far beyond how easy it is for any of us to return a jumper with a hole in it. We know there is much more to consider with regard to how the Bill will impact on the public sector. The Minister has still not clarified which services are covered, preferring to tell us only that most NHS care, state-funded education and law enforcement services are not covered. Of course, given that tuition fees, personal care payments and child care vouchers are covered, it would seem that this Bill is less a case of, “computer says no,” and more one of, “Yeah, but no, but yeah.” It has certainly felt like we have been asking questions of the sphinx at times, because we have had to find the right question in order to get the right answer for our constituents. The risk is that the Bill will devour all those who fail to solve its riddle.
In fear of yet again being cast into the pit of despair, may I again ask the Minister to clarify, with a yes or no answer, whether the following contracts are covered? Is the BBC licence fee covered? Given the recent comments of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, surely that is an apposite and important point to clarify. Before the Bill goes to the other place, it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could clarify whether it also covers parking permits and prescriptions.
Understanding this minefield and the impact it will have on consumers of public services now falls to our colleagues in the Lords. Given the evidence that we are a nation of silent sufferers—in particular, many elderly users of care services fear that they cannot complain—the fact the Minister is devolving getting this right to the Cabinet Office, as she declared on the first day on Report, simply will not stand. We put her on notice that we will not let public service users experience a two-tier system because she could not define what clause 2 does.
The Minister may sigh again and point to the long gestation of this Bill, including the Labour Government’s original 2009 White Paper on a new deal for consumers. We generally agree that there is a need to update the fundamental principles enshrined in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. That was published shortly after I was born—which, as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is no longer in his place, would say, was, “A long time ago.”
It is certainly time for an update, which is why we will not oppose this Bill’s Third Reading, but it is also time for clarity, which the Bill does not yet deliver. I hope the Minister will not think it churlish of me to say that we welcome the fact that some of our proposals have been considered and, indeed, adopted. When the issue of speedier refunds was first raised, there seemed little hope of progress, but having had our call for a time limit of 30 days batted away, we were delighted with the Government’s amendment making 14 days the cut-off for consumers to get their money back. There have also been announcements on copycat websites and letting agent fees as the Bill has progressed. Those things have been encouraging and we wait with bated breath to see on what else the Minister will come full circle.
Like the Minister, I want to put on record my gratitude to the members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the members of the Bill Committee for playing their part. Having received during the course of our deliberations a marriage proposal, hair-dressing advice, loft-conversion concerns and a lecture in socialist ideology, as well as the opportunity to hear passionate debates on issues such as electrical safety, public service reform and data protection, I believe we have given much for our colleagues in the other place to ruminate. I also want to put on record my personal thanks to the Clerks of the Public Bill Office, who have been kind and generous with their time in drafting amendments and new clauses. However mean the Minister may wish to be about those amendments and new clauses, we certainly think they have made a difference.
As the Bill goes to the other place, let me say again what a missed opportunity it has been. Major consumer reforms come along very rarely—as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead, would point out, I am now of a certain age. I fear there is little hope of a return, a refund or a repeat performance for our constituents if we get this wrong. They will not want to wait another 35 years. I have every confidence that the noble Lords will continue our work on issues such as letting agent fees, debt management, access to data, advocacy, trading standards and redress, and that they will also finally pin down the magicians of the implementation group and the mysterious work of ombudsman services.
Britain can do better. We will not oppose the Bill, but instead send it to the other place and ask it to continue our efforts to improve this Bill so that it can live up to the bold sales pitch of protecting consumer interests. If that does not happen, I for one will encourage the British public to exercise their right to a return at the ballot box in 2015 and finally cast out a Government who are clearly not fit for purpose.
Consumer Rights Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Guidance for statutory regulators
‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish guidance based on the work of the Implementation Group.
(2) Guidance published under section (1) shall—
(a) detail how consumers should be informed of their rights and at what point this should happen;
(b) ensure that traders have the information they need regarding their responsibilities under this Act and other consumer rights legislation;
(c) define what may be a “reasonable time” for consumers to secure refunds, repairs or replacement, or repeat performance; and
(d) specify the sanctions available to enforcement agencies in cases where the guidance has not been followed.
(3) Within six months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice in relation to the exercise of any and all the functions set out in the guidance, subject to the provisions of subsections (5) to (7).
(4) Any person exercising such a function must have regard to the code in determining any general policy or principles by reference to which the person exercises the function.
(5) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice under subsection (3), he shall prepare a draft of the code, and shall lay the draft before Parliament.
(6) Where the draft laid before Parliament under subsection (5) is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code.
(7) A code issued under subsection (6) shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.’.
New clause 3—Access to data
‘Schedule [Access to data] has effect.’.
New clause 4—Guidance based on the work of the implementation group
‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish guidance based on the work of the Implementation Group.
(2) Guidance published under subsection (1) shall—
(a) advise on the period that a trader may retain sums paid by the consumer for services not yet supplied by the trader, where it is the consumer who dissolves the contract;
(b) further to paragraph (a), advise on the terms under which traders should manage the interest on such sums and make provision for the return of this interest to the consumer; and
(c) advise on whether it should be permissible to charge for a guarantee where that guarantee does not offer any undertaking to the consumer additional to their rights as set out in this Act.’.
New clause 5—Independent consumer advice
‘Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall produce guidance setting out requirements for all statutory regulators to report annually on the provision of independent advice which is free at the point of delivery, and to make recommendations on ensuring consumers’ rights are protected.’.
New clause 10—Powers of the Information Commissioner: nuisance calls
‘(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 40 (Enforcement Notices), leave out subsection (2).
(3) In section 55A (Power of Commissioner to impose monetary penalty), leave out subsection (1)(b).’.
New schedule 1—‘Access to data
Information for consumers
1 The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament within six months of Royal Assent of this Act setting out how consumers will have access to the information they require in order to make informed assessments of prices, charges and fees.
Supply of customer data
2 A report under paragraph 1 shall include details of how the Government intends to—
(a) make regulations to require all regulated persons to provide customer data relating to transactions between the regulated person and the customer, as set out in section 89 (Supply of customer data) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013;
(b) enable third parties to make requests for customer data under section 89(1)(b) of that Act; and
(c) ensure customer data is provided in a form which enables the customer or third party to assess whether the price they are paying for a service is reasonable, which should have regard to section 89(7) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
Designation of regulated persons and regulatory bodies
3 A report under paragraph 1 shall—
(a) review which traders, including the activities of any government, or local or public authority, as defined by section 2 of this Act, shall be considered a regulated person under section 89(2) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013; and
(b) identify a relevant regulatory body to undertake the duties set out in paragraph 4 of this Schedule.
Guidance for regulated persons
4 A report under paragraph 1 shall include details of how the Government intends to require regulators of services which are provided by regulated persons, as defined in section 89(2) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to produce guidance on the implementation of section 89 of that Act.
5 Guidance produced for regulated persons under paragraph 4 shall include—
(a) how regulated persons should provide customer data;
(b) details on the ownership of customer data which shall include, but is not limited to—
(i) that customer data generated directly, at any point in the course of a contract, is owned by the customer;
(ii) that prior to any decision requiring the transmission of data in a format where the customer can be identified to a third party, direct consent of the customer as owner of the data must be secured; and
(iii) how regulated persons should recognise and publicise that such data is owned by the customer;
(c) how customers may consent to their data being shared with third parties under section 89(1)(b) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013;
(d) specify sanctions for traders who are not able to confirm the consent of the customer to sharing their data;
(e) measures to limit the amount that may be charged for any such single request for data on behalf of multiple customers;
(f) how regulated persons, who hold data on customers on behalf of any government, local or public authority, can use this information to secure social and consumer benefits; and
(g) how regulated persons, who hold data on customers on behalf of any government, local or public authority, can contribute to a report under paragraph 7.
Access to information: public services
6 (1) The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament within six months of Royal Assent of this Act on how the Government intends to ensure that all consumers of public services, who have a direct role in commissioning them, are able to access information regarding any consumer contract or consumer notices which may reasonably be understood to apply to them.
(2) A report under sub-paragraph (1) shall have particular regard to—
(a) the access to information that consumers of public services require; and
(b) how access to information can ensure greater transparency on the work of traders.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, “public services” means the work of any government, local or public authority or traders offering services on their behalf.
Access to information: annual report
7 (1) The Secretary of State shall produce and submit to Parliament an annual report setting out an analysis of the cumulative costs and benefits of Government decisions relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests.
(2) A report under sub-paragraph (1) shall in particular address the effect on—
(a) household consumption;
(b) vulnerable households; and
(c) any other subjects as the Secretary of State decides.’.
Stella Creasy
We come to the Report stage of the Consumer Rights Bill. I am minded of the words of the great English churchman Thomas Fuller, who said that our lot was to be born crying, live complaining and die disappointed. Of course, as true Brits, we know that that approach can be best encompassed in a “tut”, but we see the Bill as offering much more than a “tut” for people who have been ripped off. We see the potential of the Bill to free us of that particular malaise, and with that in mind we have tabled a number of amendments that we hope will receive the support of the House.
We believe that the Bill should be subject to the tests—that they should be performed with reasonable care and skill—that it sets for goods and services. At the moment, it is found wanting, and that is why today we are looking for a repeat performance and hope of speedy redress. The new clauses speak to that and in particular to the Opposition’s approach to consumer rights, which should not be only about dealing with problems when something has gone wrong, but, when done well, could avert problems. For that to happen, consumers need three things—more information, strong advocacy and speedy forms of redress.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister has opened a veritable Pandora’s box, given how some of its clauses will be perceived on the consumer landscape in the UK. We are mindful that hope lies at the bottom of Pandora’s box, and we hope with the new clauses to bring hope for how consumer rights legislation could work. Let me explain what I mean. I want to turn first to new clause 3 and new schedule 1, which new clause 3 brings into effect. The schedule refers to the first principle to which I referred—information. How do consumers get the information that they need to make the right choices for themselves the first time? We know that having access to more information is vital to empowering consumers.
The Government’s research, “Better Choices, Better Deals”, argues that if consumers were able to use price comparison sites more effectively, they could gain £150 million to £240 million a year. That is why the Opposition welcomed many of the ideas and intentions behind the midata project to give consumers more access to their information in a portable and accessible format. In Committee we expressed concern that, despite the project, four years on, it is not really working. There is a lack of information coming forward to consumers. The Minister defended the slow progress of the midata project, telling us that taking action now would prejudice the results of a review of the project that she has commissioned, and she did not think that that would be beneficial to the programme or, ultimately, to consumers. We have tabled the new clause and schedule because we fundamentally disagree. We want to go much further.
Currently the midata project covers four areas of consumer data, but we think that the power in the new schedule offers the potential for a framework for improving consumer and citizen access to data in a way that can transform outcomes and improve our consumer markets; that would be good for business and good for Britain.
We do not understand why the Government gave themselves the power, under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to enact the midata project and yet have not done so. The first thing that new schedule 1 does, therefore, is put that power into effect to ensure that consumers get the information they need, in a portable and accessible format, about a key utility bill.
Every time we click, we create wealth—whether we are giving our contact details or browsing online, companies are harvesting information that drives their marketing and product development. Datasets such as store loyalty cards, medical records or tax affairs are an important and revealing resource for both the public and the private sector. Facebook is making more money than any of us can dream about from the content that we are creating. That stream of data should not be one-way. Citizens and consumers should have access to those data in a meaningful way, which allows them to start calling for the kind of products and services that they want.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a number of key and critical points about the potential power of data in both the consumer and the public sector. Has she been able to detect a strategic or coherent approach to data access from the Government in respect of the Bill?
Stella Creasy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in the digital review that she is conducting for Labour, which reflects precisely what she is talking about—a strategic approach. That stands in stark contrast to the shambles that we have seen in relation to the care.data project, the tax return data project and some of the amendments that have been tabled to the Deregulation Bill.
This Government talk about data being like oil—a resource that can be exploited to make new industries and potentially huge profit margins. If we are creating it, however, we should also benefit from it. That is why in the new schedule we have set out a framework to enable that. We want to make sure that the British public are firmly in charge of their own data, so that they benefit from those data and how they can be used.
This should happen not just in the private sector, through the midata project, but in the public sector. It is important that we flag that up, not least because when the Bill was originally proposed, and in Committee, the Minister tried to tell us that it had no relevance to the public sector. She told the Committee:
“The purpose of the Bill is to look at the rights that consumers have in their relationships with business; it is not to look at any rights that consumers have when it comes to public services.”––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2014; c. 66.]
Only when we questioned her in the Committee did she admit that the provisions of the Bill affect the public sector. That gives us the opportunity to ask how we can ensure that consumers and citizens have access to data to make good choices in both the public and the private sector.
So far the Government have admitted that the provisions cover valuable benefits such as personal health budgets, university tuition fees and child care vouchers. Given the framework that the Government have set out, we think that the licence fee, perhaps controlled parking zones, bus fares and possibly even water and sanitation services—directly provided services that consumers pay for and for which they therefore have a contract with the provider—should also be covered.
There are concerns about access to services in the public sector, which the amendments would address. One in five of us has experienced a problem with public services in the past year, but a third of us who have experienced a problem with the public sector do not complain. We are what the Public Administration Committee has called a nation of “silent sufferers”. “More complaints please!” is the title of its report. That is not what is coming forward from the public.
As we all know, good complaints help to generate feedback. They therefore help to make services in the public and the private sector more responsive. I estimate that two thirds of our casework as MPs is about public service decisions gone wrong. Much of that is to do with what we would recognise in the private sector as information asymmetries—people not knowing what services they are entitled to and therefore getting a raw deal.
New schedule 1, which is inserted by new clause 3, is about the lessons that we can apply from the midata project to information across our lives in both the public and the private sector. We know that sharing data directly with citizens can help reform public services and improve outcomes, but we also recognise that the relationship that people have with the public sector is different from their relationship with the private sector, so regulators should look at how to make it work in both fields. We recognise that we are both providers of public services, as taxpayers, and also users and consumers of public services in our daily lives.
The benefits that come from releasing data in the public and the private sector are manifest. We need a clear framework to make sure that it is not only those with the loudest voices or the largest wallets who are able to access the benefits, whether it is giving patients the information they need on their health care to manage conditions for themselves, improving parent and pupil involvement in schools, or communities designing their own cities. The benefits from this process could be legendary, but the Bill does little to move that debate forward. Our concern is that as currently drafted the Bill could create further inequalities, as those who understand their rights in the public sector are able to use them but those who do not cannot.
Let me explain how we think the issue could be addressed. New schedule 1 is about access to information, allowing people to make the right choice the first time. New clause 1 acknowledges that choice is not enough to guarantee a good outcome. People often need an advocate, an expert or an adviser with whom to work through the options and decide what works for them. New clauses 1 and 5 both introduce a clear commitment to advocacy in the public and the private sectors to help improve the relationship betweens service providers and service users.
In the public sector, advocacy can not only improve outcomes but cut costs. A study in Nottingham showed that 60% of cases that a local advice provider was working with involved public sector decisions made badly the first time. Involving advocates reduced the number of complaints by 30%, reducing the burden on the public sector and improving outcomes for the users of services. It is a win-win scenario. The more challenge there is in the public sector, the more information and the more advocacy in the private sector, the more we can make our markets work better and our services serve our people.
However, it is clear from the work that we have done since the initial conversations in Committee that that approach, ethos and understanding of what the Bill could do for the public sector, how information could make a difference, and how advocacy could be beneficial, has not been progressed in Government discussions. It is worrying to us on the Opposition Benches to discover that, having admitted that the Bill will cover sections of the public sector, the Minister has not had talks with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about what that might mean for the licence fee.
Many of us might have watched the Eurovision song contest on Saturday night. Many of us might have had comments about the coverage—some supportive, some negative. Under the Bill, it could be argued that we have a right to a service performed with reasonable care and skill, so if we did not think that Graham Norton was the most erudite host, we could make a complaint. In theory, under the Bill, we would have a right to a repeat performance, a price reduction or a refund. That has huge ramifications for the BBC and for the licence fee, yet no conversations have yet taken place between DCMS and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the matter. We are also told that the Minister has not spoken to Ministers in the Department for Education about how the Bill covers child care tax vouchers, yet she admits that it does. Clearly, the Bill opens up the possibility that some parents will be able to use such rights to challenge the provision of nursery services in their areas, whereas others who do not know their entitlement will not.
We know that the Minister has at least spoken to the Department of Health about how the provisions will affect personal care budgets. She has, apparently, had regular informal contact. Given that many of us know that the silent sufferers are often incredibly vulnerable people, frightened of complaining about a carer because they are frightened of what will happen next, regular informal contact, I would wager, does not cut it when the Bill could transform what happens.
The Minister has, however, spoken to some people in her own Department about tuition fees. Unfortunately, the Minister with responsibility for higher education tells us that no meeting has taken place with external stakeholders about how the Bill will affect tuition fees. That might be because in Committee the Minister was not entirely sure whether students were consumers—having spoken to students about their consumption patterns, I think we can agree that they are when it comes to paying tuition fees. That is why, when the Minister responsible for higher education tells us that there have been no meetings with student representatives, higher education providers and universities on the implications of the Bill, we are rightly worried. The new clauses are needed to put in place a framework to understand those implications.
Many of us may remember some of our university lectures, some positively, some negatively. The fact that we would have the right under the legislation to complain that they had not been prepared or delivered with reasonable care and skill opens that Pandora’s box. That is why the National Union of Students has said that it is concerned about how the Bill is drafted and the possibility that legal redress could be easier and more effective for students with greater resources, whether in terms of finance or access to legal services.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about the rights of consumers and public service users. Does she not find it strange that parties that are so keen to turn passengers and patients into consumers now do not seem to understand the implications of giving potential public service users consumer rights?
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree. We all want to see an empowered citizenry. We believe that would be positive for our public services by encouraging feedback on how services work for the public. But the risk with the Bill as it stands is that those with sharp elbows will do well and those without will simply be left behind. I think that is why both Citizens Advice and Unison, which after all has considerable expertise in some of these relationships, support the amendments and say that they want to see further debate and scrutiny on how we ensure that we do not have a two-tier system, with only those services that have a direct relationship getting better service responsiveness because of such legal rights, and only those people who can access services and complain getting those rights.
Trading standards has told us how it often refers people to what it calls the “sausage machine” of local council complaint services. Under this new legislation, it is not clear whether trading standards would then be able to pick up issues. That could lead to real inequalities in both the public and private sectors without advocacy and clearer information rights, which is why we have tabled the amendments.
I also want to draw colleagues’ attention to paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, which we also believe will tackle nuisance calls. We recognise that the misuse of data is as important as the analysis of data and that there is a need to put in place a proper framework on that. Many of us will have had constituents complain about nuisance calls and texts. Indeed, only this afternoon, while waiting for this debate, I received a text telling me that I could get compensation for an accident that I have not had—perhaps it came from the Government Whips.
However, we know that there is a gap at the moment where it is hard for the Information Commissioner to prove that there has been a lack of consent, where companies themselves will not be clear about whether they have the consent of the person they have bombarded with text messages and phone calls. In one six-month period alone, 71% of landline customers said that they had received a live marketing call and 63% said that they had received a marketing message. We also know that the Information Commissioner receives about 2,500 complaints a month about unsolicited text messages. We want to close that loophole. The all-party group on nuisance calls also recommended tightening the rules on consent, and Ofcom has said that it agrees. Indeed, the Government’s own report on the nuisance calls action plan said that we should do more on consent.
Paragraph 5 of new schedule 1 would enable fines to be imposed for those people who do not show that they have the explicit consent of consumers to send them that kind of marketing message. We think that is entirely proportionate and hope that Government Members, even if they are scrabbling to understand quite what the Bill would do in the public sector, will recognise the issue of nuisance calls and act accordingly to address it. I would also encourage those among us who speak up for taxpayers—perhaps Gary Barlow should take note—to support new schedule 1.
Stella Creasy
Indeed. “Take that” is the answer we would give on many of these things.
New schedule 1 looks at the cumulative impact of Government policy on households. Currently, among European nations only Estonia has a worse proportion of people struggling to pay their energy bills than the UK. Yet one of the issues that have been debated across the House is the impact of some of the long-term planning on the infrastructure building projects for our energy system in this country and the consequences for energy bills. Indeed, in November last year the National Audit Office published a damning report stating:
“Government and regulators do not know by how much overall expected new investment by the private sector in infrastructure will increase household utility bills and whether bills will be affordable.”
We know that the concept of affordability is contested by some, and we know from the evidence the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave the Public Accounts Committee that it does not even have a target for affordability in relation to water bills. Yet many of us will have seen at first hand in our constituencies how people are struggling with those basic costs of living. We think that the Government should be able to publish an analysis of the impact of their own policies on the cost of living. Paragraph 7 of new schedule 1 asks for such a report to be provided by the Treasury. I am sure that Government Members who support transparency will want to support it.
I will say a little about new clause 2, which concerns implementation. After all, we think that with this framework we are offering the Government a way forward on information and advocacy, but we also recognise that it is no good having rights written on paper if they are not a reality in practice. One of the concerns that came up repeatedly in Committee—many of the Opposition amendments that the Government opposed related to this—is how consumers will actually access rights in practice. When will they know that they have a right to a repeat performance? At what point will the BBC tell us that we have a right to a price reduction because we did not like its commentary?
Those are all questions that the Minister said would be dealt with by the implementation group. It became a mythical beast in our minds, because it will cover so many issues, from point-of-sale information, information on remedies open to consumers, how businesses should be informed of these rights, the length of time before people can get a refund, the time limits people would get on a repair, replacement or repeat performance, or even testing consumers’ understanding of their rights.
Time and again the Minister said that we should leave it to a body of experts, which we believe—we are not entirely sure—includes organisations such as Citizens Advice, Which?, the Trading Standards Institute, the British Retail Consortium and even the Financial Conduct Authority. They are worthy bodies indeed to look at these issues, but we had some concerns in Committee, having seen some of the minutes of their meetings, which are not very frequent. Despite their good works, any recommendations they make would not be statutory guidance. Therefore, new clause 2 simply states that the recommendations they make about the rules on how the Bill should be implemented should have meaning, that they should have real teeth, that it is no good saying that it would be good for consumers to be informed of their rights if that does not actually happen at the coal face or at the shopping till.
In proposing this first group of new clauses, we are trying to make this Bill what it could be. We are trying to find the hope at the bottom of Pandora’s box. We are trying to ensure that consumers have access to the information and advice they need to make good choices the first time around. The old model of politics, in which progress depends on centralising these abilities, will no longer work with our communities. The task at hand, we believe, is to give the public more control and more power over their lives to enable them to make the choices that they want to make first time. As it stands, the Bill will leave citizens to navigate services alone, without the resources, either money or skill, to struggle to make them work.
We want to do something different. We want to reform the public sector by devolving power to people, investing in the prevention and co-operation they need to make services work for them, to stand shoulder to shoulder with every consumer and every citizen, not blunting the efforts of those who already fight for services, but enabling more people to give the feedback about the kinds of services we want in the public and private sectors. We believe that new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 and new schedule 1 will enable that framework to be put in place, and we hope that the Government will respond positively to the points that we have made as a result.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 10, which stands in my name. Although I support paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, it is not just the lack of consent that I think is the problem with nuisance calls. My new clause has been promoted by the huge growth in nuisance calls and messages. In fact, on each occasion when I have been out on the streets recently, at least three people have come up to me to talk about the explosion in unsolicited contacts and said, “Can’t something be done?” There is a weak data protection regime and consumers feel that they have lost control of their personal information.
I am convinced that if I was on a desert island the first call I would receive would be someone offering me a loan to get off the island. For people in financial difficulties, in particular, nuisance calls and text messages offering high-cost credit, such as payday loans or fee-charging debt management services, can lead to the temptation to take out products or services that, if mis-sold—they often are—could substantially worsen their situation.
StepChange has done some research that shows that 1.2 million British adults have been tempted to take out high-interest credit as a result of an unsolicited marketing call or text. There is legislation to protect consumers against these practices. Unsolicited promotional electronic messages are banned, but the ban is widely flouted and inadequately enforced. My new clause would lower the threshold for firms breaching the Act. At the moment, the Information Commissioner’s Office can issue enforcement notices against these companies only if “damage or distress” can be demonstrated. It can also issue monetary penalties to firms misusing consumer data or breaking the laws on electronic communication under section 551 of the Data Protection Act, but only if
“substantial damage or substantial distress”
to the consumer can be demonstrated.
I believe that those thresholds are far too high. They should be lowered so that firms can be issued with enforcement notices or fined for breaching the Act without the Information Commissioner having to demonstrate “damage or distress” or
“substantial damage or substantial distress”.
The current thresholds have resulted in a situation where it is next to impossible for the Information Commissioner to enforce penalties against these firms. A recent tribunal decision went against the Information Commissioner when a £300,000 fine was overturned despite the defendant sending hundreds of thousands of illegal text messages.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I want to talk briefly about new clause 3 and new schedule 1, particularly because they relate to the private sector and one of the three sectors named under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, this country, like the rest of the world, is undergoing a revolution in data in terms of their volume, richness and accessibility, and, in some ways, their associated risks. There is also a rapidly changing market in price comparison, and the hon. Lady has referred to some of the benefits that can accrue from that. The development of that market is not entirely benign and is certainly not without cost. There are two opposing forces: consumers’ ability to compare prices and services side by side tends to bring prices down, but the nature of the marketing—the branding land grab, the cost of advertising and particularly the pay-per-click auction model on the internet—tends to drive costs and therefore prices up. It is certainly true, however, that price comparison has great potential to make markets work better. I am very proud of everything the Government are doing with midata to help make that a reality.
One market that does not work at all is one of the three mentioned in the 2013 Act: retail banking current accounts. The actual cost to consumers of having a current account is, on average, £152 a year, but nobody we talk to, including informed consumers and even Members of this House, knows that. Whenever we talk about “free” banking, we should use inverted commas, because, of course, there is no such thing as free banking. If consumers could see how much they are actually paying, both explicitly in behavioural charges and implicitly through forgone interest, the retail banking market would work better because there would be more diversity and competition.
Critically and perhaps even more importantly—this touches on some of the new clauses and amendments we will debate later—the fact that people do not know how much their banking is costing them inhibits the development of new retail banking products. Such products include budgeting bank accounts—so-called jam jar accounts—for which people have to pay a fee, but through which they are much less likely to tip into debt, because they make it easier to budget money and also that tiny bit easier to save a small amount.
New clause 3 is not necessary because progress is already being made. The powers already exist.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but the powers already exist under the 2013 Act. The Government are looking for voluntary progress, which I think is the right way to proceed on reforming markets. A review of progress is due about now, and I hope the Government will continue to do what they are doing. They have the reserve right to push for more and have said explicitly that if not enough is being done, they will consult on the wording of regulations in order to make those markets work better compulsorily. That is the right approach, as opposed to jumping the gun.
Jenny Willott
That is the point I just made. If a warranty provides no more than the statutory rights and there is a charge associated with it, whoever is selling the warranty may well be in breach of consumer protection regulations. When shops sell goods and the warranty is purchased at the same time, the full cost must be disclosed and consumers must be informed of their statutory rights. Consumers also have the right to cancel the extended warranty within a set period, and those rights must be made known to the consumers when they purchase the warranty. That is covered under consumer protection regulations, and there are also rights in this Bill. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be covered.
The other issue raised today is nuisance calls, which is a priority for the Government. I am sure that all hon. Members have had constituency casework on that, but there is no silver bullet to eradicate the problem. That is why in our action plan of 30 March we set out a range of measures to address the issue. They included work that is already under way to improve call tracing, making it easier to disclose information between Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, and setting up a taskforce led by Which? to review consumer consent issues. We will also consult on making it easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to tackle nuisance calls as part of amending the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Although I understand the intention behind the new clause, the Government are taking a lot of action in this area. Changes will be introduced in the next months, and we are consulting on more actions. I hope that I have covered the issues raised by hon. Members, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Walthamstow to withdraw her new clause.
Stella Creasy
The Minister expressed surprise that some of these issues should have been the subject of new clauses. I am sad about that. In her responses, she is missing some of the debates that we had in Committee on just these issues—not just on implementation but on the impact of the Bill on the public sector. I am saddened that she has not answered what I call the Graham Norton question about the licence fee. We will take that as a yes, meaning that licence fee payers will be entitled to these rights.
The Minister said that a review of complaints is ongoing and talked about the role of the public sector ombudsman. This is what is causing so much concern and has prompted the new clauses. That is happening at the same time as this legislation is making progress, so a whole series of new legal methods of redress will be open to licence fee payers, personal care budget holders and students paying tuition fees. At the same time, a secondary process is being undertaken in government. The situation is confusing.
I am pleased that the Minister’s understanding of consumer rights in the public sector—and what they can offer—is evolving. In that sense, I am happy to give her the benefit of the doubt in what she says about new clause 2 and the implementation group. I am sure that the Lords will want to hear about its further progress. I am also happy to give her the benefit of the doubt about advocacy. Her conversion to the importance of advocacy is welcome: it was not clear in Committee, but it is wonderful to hear her talking about it now. She has been dragged kicking and screaming to the debate, and I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and even the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) about the importance of advocacy and what more should be done in the Bill.
On that basis, I am happy not to press new clause 5 to a vote, but I will press new clause 3 and new schedule 1, given what the Minister said about information. I have to point out to the hon. Member for East Hampshire that the Government have admitted that the midata project has stalled. The look on his face spoke volumes about the problems of getting access to those data. The Minister said that the Government thought that people should have access to the data they create within the public sector: the Opposition think that people should own their own data. It is a clear dividing line.
New clause 3 and new schedule 1 set out some clear rights for people. On nuisance calls, the Minister said the Government are already doing something. Why does she oppose paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, which would place sanctions on those people who do not have consent, to send a clear message to the companies that are abusing the information that they have? It is beyond me. The issue of ownership of data is key, so we will press new clause 3, which would bring in new schedule 1, to a vote. The British public should not just have access to their data; they should own it. It is a clear division between the two parties on consumer and citizen rights, and an increasingly important debate for this country. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Access to data
‘Schedule [Access to data] has effect.’.—(Stella Creasy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Debt management plan regulation—
‘The Financial Conduct Authority shall bring forward recommendations within a year of the commencement of this Act regarding the practice of directly charging consumers fees or charges for the provision of debt management plans, including recommendations on the phasing out of such practices.’.
New clause 9—Credit broker fees—
‘(1) The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 160A (Credit intermediaries) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Persons engaged in credit intermediary activity under this section or credit broking activity under section 145 shall not charge or take any fee from a debtor in respect of these activities until such time as an introduction results in the debtor entering into a relevant agreement.”.’.
New clause 11—Practices of rent to own companies—
‘(1) This section applies to credit agreements and consumer hire agreements taken out in respect of household goods specified in rules by the Financial Conduct Authority.
(2) The rules under subsection (1) shall—
(a) include a requirement on lenders to include in pre-contractual information adequate explanations and information allowing prospective customers to compare both the cash price of goods and the total cost of the credit agreement to a representative retail price for those goods;
(b) prohibit lenders from requiring customers to take out insurance sold or brokered by the lender as a condition of obtaining credit;
(c) set out specific steps lenders must take before taking action to enforce the agreement or recover possession of goods; and
(d) set out the steps lenders should take to check that the agreement is affordable and suitable for prospective consumers.’.
New clause 23—Consumer credit: bill of sale—
‘(1) Where a person is a purchaser of goods subject to a bill of sale, made in connection with a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in good faith and without notice of the bill of sale, title to those goods shall pass to that person.
(2) A creditor is not entitled to enforce a bill of sale made in connection with a regulated agreement by recovering possession of the goods except through an order of the court.
(3) If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention to subsection (2)—
(a) the bill of sale will be treated as invalidly made; and
(b) the debtor shall be released from any outstanding liability under the regulated agreement.
(4) If the creditor has disposed of goods taken in contravention of subsection (2) the debtor shall be compensated to the value of those goods.’.
Stella Creasy
The new clauses lie at the heart of consumer issues: if consumers have no money in their pockets, they will not do very much consuming. A personal debt crisis is brewing because millions of people are trying to make ends meet and pay for the debt they took on to try to make ends meet previously. Household debt is at its highest since 2009, with people owing £1.6 trillion in personal debt. Some 43% of us say that we often or sometimes struggle to make it to payday—little wonder, given the way in which the cost of living has escalated. The new clauses come into play because debt repayment is increasingly the reason that people struggle to make it to payday. They reflect an attempt not to continue the good work that has been done in this House to address the consumer credit market, but to recognise that the Government’s belated conversion to the Opposition’s approach on payday lending needs to be just the start of the conversation on how we ensure that people have the pounds in the pocket they need. This is intrinsic to our economic future, given that consumer spending has accounted for so much of the growth we are now seeing. That, in itself, is perhaps one of the problems we face.
Let me explain the new clauses I wish to speak to today, because I know that other Members want to speak to the new clauses they propose. New clause 6 concerns what Members might call my bête noir—payday lenders. There are now 8 million loans annually, which are worth £2.2 billion. Those loans come with a cost. The National Audit Office estimates that they cost consumers £450 million a year of direct consumer harm, because of the failure to regulate the payday lending industry. For several years we proposed regulation of the industry, but it will come in only next year.
One in 10 British adults are likely to take out a payday loan in the next six months. That figure is going up, not down. It is little wonder that companies such as Wonga are making £1 million a week from our constituents—a 36% increase on the previous year—even though it is writing off huge swathes of its loan book. Some 40% of those who took out a payday loan said that it made their financial position worse, but many feel that they have little alternative. Credit unions are desperately trying to fill the gap, but it is an impossible gap to fill with the current level of need. It is time for payday lenders to pay their way. New clause 6 would enable an additional levy to be made on high cost credit companies to ensure that they provide funding for the debt advice and extension of credit unions that this situation requires. In fact, we believe the pressure on debt advice agencies and, indeed, credit unions is likely to increase, not subside, in the years ahead. We therefore think it time for the payday lenders to pay for the damage they have done.
New clause 7 also speaks to the growing personal debt bubble in our society, and to the conduct of the cowboy debt management agencies. We have already talked about legal loan sharks, and now it is time to look at the cowboys, but these are not just the stuff of nightmare. These companies are profiting from the misery of our constituents, exploiting the way in which debt management is done in this country.
The Government themselves admit that in excess of 1 million consumers each year are seeking advice on how best to deal with their financial difficulties. Many of us will know from our constituency surgeries the people who come to us in desperate need, often because they are about to be evicted for falling behind with their rent. We also encounter people who are struggling financially and who need help forming a debt management plan to deal with their creditors. That is the gap that these companies have filled.
About 7% of British adults report struggling to payday due to debt management payment plans, and 6% blame their payday loan problems on debt repayments. Bank loan repayments are the cause of 13% of those who struggle to payday. People are struggling because they are trying to pay back the debts they have accrued, especially over the last couple of years. It equates to about 2.5 million people that we know of who are already in a debt management plan.
Some debt management plans are available free, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Christians Against Poverty and StepChange for the work they are doing in providing people with free debt advice. After all, it is the most perverse of experiences for people struggling with financial debt to be charged to get out of the hole they are in. That is the challenge we are facing. It was estimated in 2010 that commercial debt management companies were making about £250 million a year from over-indebted clients. As I say, that was back in 2010. The Money Advice Service now tells us that there are 9 million people in our country who are over-indebted, so these are the people for whom these sorts of services may well be apposite. The need to reform how they work therefore becomes even stronger.
Ministers admitted in 2002 in response to questioning by the BIS Committee that there was evidence of some abuse of upfront fees, so let us talk about what is meant by that. We have an example from Clear View Finance of a gentleman for whom 90% of the money he was paying to the company was being taken in a fee, so a mere 10% of the money he was paying to clear his debts was going to his creditors—little chance for him to get out of the cycle of debt he was in any time soon! Yet when the Minister admitted that there was such abuse, he said that these companies had a role to play, so there was not really any need for any further regulation of them. We disagree, and we were disappointed when the Government voted in Committee against our proposals to deal with debt management companies.
We recognise that the Financial Conduct Authority has taken over the management of these companies, and it proudly trumpets that it is going to limit to 50% the amount a company can take in fees rather than pay out to creditors. We believe that we should go much further. We do not believe that people should be charged for being in debt when they come forward for help, and we want to see the phasing out of fees for debt management altogether.
Let me provide an example of why that would make a difference. StepChange, which provides this service for free, found that a client with a typical debt of £30,000 would have to pay for a commercial product almost an extra £6,000 in fees—£6,000 over and above the loan repayments. That extended the plan by approximately 18 months in comparison with one that StepChange had put together.
Taken in concert with new clause 6, which would provide the funding to increase debt advice, we believe that we can phase out fees for debt management, and we believe that that is the right thing to do—not to charge people for getting into debt, but to help them get out of debt. As millions of Britons are already in this cycle and millions more are likely to get into it as interest rates rise and they have increasing problems with their credit card and personal debt repayments coming home to roost, the case for reforming our debt management cowboy firms grows all the stronger.
Finally, new clause 23 speaks to another legal loan sharking practice in this country, which we believe is long overdue for overhauling. Citizens Advice chief executive Gillian Guy has said:
“The logbook industry is still in the dark ages and has been getting away with lawless practices. It is absolutely absurd that a firm should be able to take away someone’s possessions without any due legal process.”
Millions of people are affected, both those who take out logbook loans and those who buy a second-hand car without knowing that there is a charge against it, only to find that the car is being repossessed and that they have no recourse to any legal practice.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I intervene on the hon. Lady because I want to put it on record that no Government Members are laughing about anyone who happens to be in debt. Many of us, along with Opposition Members, have worked very hard to deal with issues relating to personal debt, and we are not laughing at all.
Stella Creasy
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes the issue seriously. I assume that he will support the new clauses, which constitute a recognition of the need to act now. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks of 13 years, but the growth of the payday lending and logbook loan industries has exploded as people have found that there is too much month at the end of their money. That has been a fact for the last couple of years. The question for all of us now is this: do we sit and argue about these issues, or do we take action? The Bill gives us an opportunity to take action with some very concrete proposals to end fees for debt management companies, to make the payday lenders pay their way, and to deal with the problem of logbook loans.
Let me simply say this to Government Members. They can either put their money where their mouths are and recognise that these problems need to be dealt with, or they can carp and make political points. It is their call, but I know what my constituents would rather see: support for the new clauses.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I have a huge amount of admiration for the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who tabled new clause 11, and who brings plenty of front-line experience to the House. She has taken a cross-party, constructive and positive approach on a number of issues, and has a good, strong record of influencing the Government’s opinions.
The new clause is, in effect, the BrightHouse clause, and I was moved to come and speak about it because I had seen the company’s recent television advertisements displaying the cost of renting washing machines, televisions and even the sofas on which people could sit while using the other articles they were renting.
There are two parts to the proposals that I urge the Government to seriously consider. The first concerns displaying the total cost, because often the weekly or monthly repayments seem relatively reasonable but once we translate them over the entire period of the loan, we start to realise they can be a very expensive way to purchase an item. The work I have done on the all-party group on financial education for young people was centred on empowering consumers to make informed decisions, and that should also be a priority in respect of consumer credit regulations. It is all about making sure consumers can make an informed decision, and when the facts are displayed in cash terms even those with limited financial ability are able to make a relatively informed decision.
The point about protecting consumers by making sure they can afford the products is also important. We are moving towards that in the high-cost lending market. It is what we do with bank loans, for instance, and I do not think it is unreasonable to have it in this context, because this is in effect a loan, as until the person has completed the purchase—until they have paid 100% of those monthly or weekly costs—the item is not theirs. If they fall over at the 99% stage, it is returned. It is therefore in effect a loan that gives the person something at the end, so there should be protection because all too often consumers who have no chance of completing 100% of the payments are getting themselves into an expensive way of accessing items. There is merit in those two particular areas and I hope the Government will give them serious consideration.
Damian Hinds
It is always a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) who talks not only with passion but with a great deal of knowledge and expertise about these matters. I wish to speak briefly about new clauses 11 and 6. Before I do, may I say that it was a little unfortunate that the remarks of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) took the turn that they did at the end? What she said is simply not true, and everybody in this House who takes an interest in these issues, which she certainly does, knows that the sub-prime high-cost credit market has been around for donkey’s years. It has not started—[Interruption.] No, it has not started, or even in its totality dramatically shifted, in the past three years.
The hon. Lady mentioned statistics for payday lending and logbook lending, but, if she was being complete in her analysis, she might have talked about when the big growth spurt came in home credit. She might even have talked about when the growth spurt came in rent to own. Perhaps she would like to take the opportunity to talk briefly about those things now. I would happily take an intervention.
Stella Creasy
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he voted three times in the House over the past three years against capping the cost of credit and therefore tackling some of these problems? If he recognises that there are problems, is he saying that he will support the new clauses today?
Damian Hinds
Clearly, I was not saying that. I was asking the hon. Lady whether she wanted to comment on the growth of home credit and rent to own. We have had many opportunities in this House to discuss a cap on the cost of credit, and she and I—and she and many other Members—have had an opportunity to discuss some of the practical aspects. There will now be a cap on the total cost of credit, but that is not to say that the definition of that is without difficulties. It remains a tricky thing to do. All of us, including her, who take a close interest in these issues know that there is no single silver bullet solution that solves any of these market problems. We need regulation, empowerment for consumers, financial education and sensible alternatives. This House is at its best when we are discussing what those practical approaches might be, and I welcome the new clauses, which allow us to talk about those very things. I have an awful lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind new clause 11, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Makerfield, and for what is behind new clauses 7 and 9, but we must be wary about seemingly straightforward legislative solutions that may not deliver all they purport to.
We always talk in the plural when we refer to rent-to-own companies, but in reality there is one really big company. There is a problem with the pricing and marketing of these companies. I have recently been added to the BrightHouse e-mail marketing list. I do not know what I have done to deserve that honour—I am not sure whether I should take it as a compliment—but I am now bombarded with messages saying how easy it is to pay weekly, and it is those messages that go to the heart of the problem. To be fair, the slightly misleading approach that we are talking about does not necessarily apply just to rent-to-own companies. We could say that it applies to every pay-monthly mobile phone contract, through which we not only pay for our calls but finance the phone, but it is never advertised how much is for the phone and how much for the calls. We always see it as one all-together monthly amount.
Jenny Willott
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about that. He raises a very important point: the more we can help young people to understand some of these complex financial systems and how to manage money, hopefully, fewer people will end up in debt—particularly unaffordable debt—in the future.
Returning to the FCA rules on hire-purchase contracts for household goods and what has been called the “BrightHouse clause,” the FCA’s new rules will require firms to provide pre-contractual explanations and information in line with European requirements. I hope that answers the point made by a number of Members on both sides of the House. The information will include the cash price of the goods being financed and the total amount payable. The FCA rules will require that information to be provided to consumers before they sign up. I hope that will ensure greater transparency for customers.
The rules also mean that firms have to adhere to debt-collection rules—a point raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield—including treating customers who are in default or arrears with forbearance and due consideration. They also require firms to assess credit worthiness and affordability, including the potential to impact adversely on the consumer’s financial situation and their ability to make repayments as they fall due. There are, therefore, broad requirements on firms to try to tackle some of the hon. Lady’s concerns about consumer detriment.
When firms sell associated insurance products, they must do so in line with the FCA’s requirements for assessing a consumer’s eligibility to claim on a product and the high-level principle of treating customers fairly. Those are new requirements to ensure that we try to tackle consumer detriment. The Government believe that the tough and decisive action taken by the FCA will ensure that customers are better protected as a result.
Finally, we discussed the issue of logbook loans at some length in Committee and I completely understand the concern about the potential for consumer detriment as a result of these products. The Government believe that people should be free to borrow and have the tools to make an informed decision about which credit product is right for them, but consumers should be confident that they will be treated fairly and that the regulator will step in when things go wrong.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow will be aware, logbook lenders now also fall under the responsibility of the FCA. As I have said with regard to other credit firms, I believe that consumers will be far better protected under the FCA regime than they have been in the past. The FCA has been very clear that logbook lenders are among the firms that it considers pose the greatest risk to consumers, and they will be in the first phase of firms that have to be fully authorised from October. Logbook loans are defined by the FCA as higher risk activities and, as such, lenders face closer supervision and higher regulatory costs.
Logbook loan providers are now also required to meet the standards the FCA expects of lenders in making thorough affordability checks and providing the adequate pre-contractual explanations to consumers. They are also subject to the high-level principle of treating customers fairly. Indeed, the FCA considers this area to be a particular concern. It has said that it is
“putting logbook lenders on notice”,
and that its new rules give it
“the power to tackle any firm found not putting customers’ interests first.”
It is therefore taking its new responsibilities very seriously.
In addition to the FCA’s robust action, Treasury Ministers have asked the Law Commission to look at how best to reform the Bills of Sale Act—as we know, the legislation underpinning logbook loans is old, lengthy and incredibly complex—and, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) highlighted, the Government believe that the Law Commission is best placed to undertake a thorough assessment of how we can bring the legislation up to date. It has responded favourably to the Treasury request, and it will confirm its upcoming work programme soon.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised concerns about people buying cars with outstanding loans against them and about the impact on customers. She said that a large proportion of second-hand cars are sold with pre-existing charges. The Bill, like the existing law, is clear that there is a legal obligation on the seller to notify the buyer of any outstanding charges. The Bill covers business-to-consumer sales, and sales between individual consumers have the same level of protection under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which provides that the seller must have the right to sell the goods. That applies to all contracts for the sale of goods, so it covers private sales, in addition to purchases of goods from a shop or a business. Goods must be free from any undisclosed charge or encumbrance, which applies to hire-purchase terms for goods sold on, as well as to logbook loans. The private seller is in breach of contract if they do not have the right to sell, or if there are undisclosed charges on the goods, which means that the buyer can get their money back from the private seller.
The Government are concerned about the impact of unscrupulous traders in all these areas. That is why we have taken so much action and given such strong powers to the Financial Conduct Authority, and I do not believe that the Opposition’s new clauses are the right way forward. The Government’s approach is the right one for protecting consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, and I hope the hon. Member for Walthamstow will withdraw new clause 6.
Stella Creasy
We have had an interesting debate. I acknowledge that there is interest in this issue, as well as experience and expertise, on both sides of the House, which has been reflected in most of the speeches. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) who, for all of us, is a touchstone on issues involving the consumer credit market.
I put on the record my support for the work of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on the credit union movement. However, I must say that I brook no argument from him when Government Members have had three chances—not one, not two, but three chances, or an almost biblical opportunity—to deal with payday lending and the cost of credit, but voted against it.
In 140 characters, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), like Shelley’s grandmother, shed much heat but not a lot of light on what Government Members will do about the issues that are to come. Our new clauses are about the new forms of legal loan sharking and the new nightmares experienced by many of our constituents. The hon. Lady is making a tapping noise. Is that her calculating the amount of money people have to pay out to the debt management and logbook loan companies?
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady is doing herself a disservice. We are not point scoring. Many Government Members have concerns about debt. The tapping noise I was making refers to the fact that she seems unable to listen to comments from Government Members, and just tweets her own self-promotion endlessly.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady may be horrified about letting the public know what she and Government Members have been saying, but we are not. Government Members may be confident in their commitment to the idea that they are somehow tackling the cost of living, but when it comes to opportunities to make progress on such things as logbook loans or debt management fees, they have nothing to say and they should rightly be held to account not just in the House, but online. She would do well to reflect on such matters.
I want to move on to what hon. Members have mentioned in the debate, but may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) that I consider us to be master and apprentice in our dress today? She pointed out that the Government seem to have a problem with the doors when it comes to voting the right way on consumer credit matters.
Let me pay tribute to the Minister and the members of the Sharkstoppers campaign. To hear a Minister in this Government talking about the action that they will take on payday lending is a tribute to the work of all those campaigners across the country. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt when she says that this Government want to make payday lenders pay their fair share. She was extremely honest about the fact that she has no idea how much money payday lenders will contribute to the cost of providing debt advice. We want to return to the issue in the Lords once we get that information, but we are happy to wait for the Minister to come back with the sums, to show that payday lenders are paying their fair share. We are pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority is looking at the outrageous practice of charging people in debt with debt management fees, and we will wait to see what the Government bring forward, and consider these issues again in the Lords in terms of whether fees should be abolished outright.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Right to full refund: ticketed events—
‘An event organiser must issue a full cash refund where their tickets are returned to them up to 24 hours before the start of the event.’.
New clause 13—Goods to be as described: meat products—
‘(1) All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.
(2) A food outlet is anywhere where food is served to the public.’.
New clause 14—Communications services: change of service provider—
‘(1) Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (2)(b) insert “with a switching process that is led by the receiving communications service provider”.’.
New clause 15—Right to corrective action—
‘(1) This section applies if either—
(a) the responsible economic actor has identified that goods supplied present a health and safety risk to the consumer; or
(b) the appropriate authority has identified that goods supplied present a risk to the public safety; and
as a result, the product is subject to corrective action by either party (a “recall action”).
(2) The consumer has the right to expect that the responsible economic actor for any goods supplied subject to a recall action must take all reasonable steps to inform all persons affected, or likely to be affected by the safety risks from the goods, within the shortest period of time practicable.
(3) The consumer, if placed at risk by goods subject to a recall action, has the right to prompt and effective action by the economic actor of that product to ensure that—
(a) the defect posing a safety risk to any persons affected or likely to be affected is eliminated;
(b) the actions required to achieve (a) do not cause significant inconvenience to the consumer; and
(c) all costs associated with the recall action are borne by the responsible economic actor.
(4) The Secretary of State will periodically gather and make publicly available information relating to safety incidents caused by recalled goods, and estimates of how many such goods still remain unaccounted for.
(5) The effectiveness of recall actions, and the procedures in place to achieve successful recalls, will be the subject of periodic review by the Secretary of State, with reference to public information on recalls in subsection (4) and any other relevant data.
(6) The Secretary of State may create or designate a body to act as a consumer product safety and recall authority.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the authority to—
(a) act to protect the public from identifiable and unreasonable risks of injury, death or household risk from consumer products;
(b) review products, test products, or receive or commission reports from other competent persons;
(c) direct corrective action to be taken by relevant economic actors, regulators or authorities;
(d) ensure and direct forms of consumer registration, from purchase of products, with databases which will be conducive to optimal fulfilment of (a) and (c) above;
(e) require notification by economic actors, including manufacturers, brand suppliers or traders, of significant evidence of concern in respect of the consumer safety of relevant products; and
(f) provide for accessible, intelligible information and advice to be available to consumers and relevant economic actors in respect of product safety, corrective actions and other guidances relevant to the authority’s work.
(8) For the purposes of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7), the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) market regulators;
(b) relevant authorities; and
(c) any other bodies he thinks appropriate.
(9) For the purposes of this section “economic actor” means—
(a) a “trader” as defined in section 2(2); or
(b) a manufacturer of “goods” as defined in section 2(8).’.
This new clause would enable new provision to be made regarding recall actions where a level of consumer safety risk has been identified. It would allow the Secretary of State to review and add to arrangements for corrective action for the protection of consumer safety.
New clause 16—Secondary ticketing platforms: product and seller information—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to all traders who operate as secondary ticketing platforms on the application of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
(2) Guidance issued under section (1) shall include how secondary ticketing platforms must inform consumers of—
(a) the chosen identity of the seller;
(b) the country of residence of the seller;
(c) information provided by previous buyers on the reliability of the seller and the tickets he has sold;
(d) information on any complaints made against the seller for failing to supply tickets;
(e) information on any complaints made against the seller for supplying fraudulent or invalidated tickets; and
(f) information on all other accounts currently or previously held with the secondary ticketing platform linked to the seller by virtue of personal, financial and contact information provided by them.
(3) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how information required under Part 2 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 shall be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to purchase.
(4) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how secondary ticketing platforms must disclose clearly if the seller of the ticket is—
(a) the secondary ticketing platform themselves;
(b) individuals employed by the secondary ticketing platform;
(c) other companies linked to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform;
(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on their behalf; or
(e) any other party connected to the event organiser of the event.
(5) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out the status of tickets as unique goods with distinct characteristics which would affect—
(a) the enjoyment of the good by the consumer;
(b) the use of the good by the consumer; or
(c) the inherent value of the good in questions.
(6) Where a ticket is sold through a secondary ticketing platform, guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply to tickets as unique goods, including—
(a) how sellers must provide all relevant information about the ticket including but not limited to the face value of the ticket and a designated seat or ticket number;
(b) how secondary ticketing platforms will publish all the information about a ticket provided by the seller in a prominent and clear way; and
(c) what sanctions will apply for failing to provide this information under the regulations.’.
New clause 17—Secondary ticketing platforms: fraudulent tickets—
‘(1) Where a secondary ticketing platform becomes aware that sellers using their service have acquired tickets through illegal methods, or are selling fraudulent tickets, they have a duty to report this to the relevant law enforcement agency immediately.
(2) A secondary ticketing platform must meet any lawful requests for information on sellers made by law enforcement agencies or courts.
(3) Where a law enforcement agency has notified a secondary ticketing platform that a ticket advertised through their service is, or is suspected to be, fraudulent, the secondary ticketing platform must remove that ticket and suspend the seller’s activities immediately.’.
New clause 18—Secondary ticketing platforms: seller profiles—
‘(1) Secondary ticketing platforms must provide a profile of information on sellers using their service.
(2) Profile information provided under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—
(a) the name of the seller;
(b) the country of residence of the seller;
(c) if the seller is a company or business, its registered number, if any;
(d) if the seller is a company or business, its registered office or address for service;
(e) a list of all current and past inventory sold or offered for sale by the seller;
(f) information on all other accounts currently or previously held with the secondary ticketing platform linked to the seller by virtue of personal, financial and contact information provided by him;
(g) information provided by previous buyers of the reliability of the seller and the tickets he has sold;
(h) information on any complaints made against the seller for failing to supply tickets, and the resolution of those complaints;
(i) the VAT registration number of the seller, if applicable; and
(j) information on any complaints made against the seller for supplying fraudulent or invalidated tickets, and the resolution of those complaints.
(3) Information provided under subsection (1) must be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete their purchase.
(4) Secondary ticketing platforms must disclose clearly and prominently where the seller of the ticket is—
(a) the secondary ticketing platform themselves;
(b) individuals employed by the secondary ticketing platform;
(c) other companies linked to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform;
(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on their behalf; or
(e) any other party connected to the organisation of the event.
(5) Where a seller offers for sale more than 20 tickets to the same event, the secondary ticketing platform must take reasonable steps to verify the validity of the tickets.’.
New clause 19—Secondary ticketing platforms: ticket information—
‘(1) Where a ticket is sold through a secondary ticketing platform—
(a) the seller must provide all relevant information about the ticket; and
(b) the secondary ticketing platform must publish all the information about a ticket provided by the seller in a prominent and clear way.
(2) Information to be requested by the secondary ticketing platform and provided by the seller for the purposes of subsection (1) should include, but is not limited to—
(a) the face value of the ticket;
(b) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket; and
(c) the designated block, row, seat or ticket number, where applicable.
(3) Where tickets are being resold in contravention of the terms and conditions agreed to by the original purchaser, this must be stated prominently by the secondary ticketing platform at every stage of the purchasing process.
(4) Information provided by virtue of this section must be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete their purchase.’.
New clause 20—Secondary ticketing platforms: compensation—
‘(1) Secondary ticketing platforms must reimburse reasonable costs to a buyer where a ticket sold through their service is fraudulent or invalidated.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), reasonable costs must include, but are not limited to—
(a) the price paid for the ticket by the buyer, inclusive of all service and delivery charges;
(b) all travel expenses incurred by the buyer in travelling from their place of residence to the location of the event for which they had purchased the ticket; and
(c) any accommodation expenses incurred by the buyer for the sole purpose of attending the event for which they had purchased the ticket.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), reasonable costs should be defined as a total amount not exceeding twice the total purchase price of the ticket or tickets in question, including all additional fees and taxes paid.
(4) Claims made by a buyer against a secondary ticketing platform under this section must be proven by receipts or other documentary proof.
(5) The secondary ticketing platform must settle any claims under this section within 40 working days, other than where a suspected fraud or abuse related to the transaction in question is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the relevant statutory authority.
(6) Secondary ticketing platforms are permitted to take all necessary action to recover any monies paid out to consumers under this section from the seller of the ticket.’.
New clause 21—Secondary ticketing platforms: definitions—
‘(1) A “secondary ticketing platform” means a person or company operating an internet-based facility for the resale of tickets to events including in the United Kingdom, regardless of the country in which the owner of the service is registered.
(2) A “ticket” means anything which purports to be a ticket, including any item, tangible or intangible, which grants the holder entry to an event.
(3) An “event” means any sporting, music or cultural activity taking place at a specified time and place for which tickets are issued and required for entry or attendance.
(4) An “event organiser” means the person or persons responsible for organising and holding an event and receiving the revenue from the event.
(5) A “fraudulent ticket” means a forged or duplicated ticket.
(6) An “invalidated ticket” means a ticket which has been cancelled by the event organiser, or an agent acting on their behalf, after being issued.’.
New clause 22—Prohibition of fees in contracts for services: letting of residential accommodation—
‘(1) The provisions in this section apply to a contract for a trader to supply a service in connection with the letting of a residential premises.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who demands or accepts payment of any sum of money from a person (“P”) for services in connection with a contract for the letting of residential premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), P is any person—
(a) who seeks to enter a contract to let residential accommodation, or
(b) who has a tenancy of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
“letting” shall include any service provided in connection with the advertisement or marketing of residential accommodation or with the grant or renewal of a tenancy;
“services shall —
(a) include, and are not limited to—
(i) the registration of persons seeking accommodation,
(ii) the selection of prospective occupiers, and
(iii) any work associated with the production or completion of written agreements or other relevant documents.
(b) not include credit checks of person seeking accommodation.
(5) Where a person unlawfully demands or accepts payment under this section in the course of his employment, the employer or principal of that person shall also be guilty of an offence.
(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of rent or a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.
(7) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting a holding deposit.
(8) A “holding deposit” for the purposes of subsection (7) is—
(a) a sum of money demanded of or accepted from a person, in good faith for the purpose of giving priority to that person in relation to the letting of a specific property, which is to be credited towards the tenancy deposit or rent upon the grant of the tenancy of that property, and
(b) not greater than two weeks rent for the accommodation in question.
(9) Costs incurred by persons seeking accommodation for the undertaking of credit checks shall be reimbursed upon the signing of a tenancy agreement.
(10) In this section, any reference to the grant or renewal of a tenancy shall include the grant or renewal or continuance of a lease or licence of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.
(11) In this section “rent” shall include any occupation charge under a licence.’.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that those who represent businesses with fewer than 10 employees and are purchasing goods or services for use within their commercial activities will be considered consumers.’.
Government amendments 9 to 14.
Amendment 5, in clause 48, page 30, line 3, leave out from ‘(5)’ to ‘resolution’ and insert ‘may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by’.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 20, in clause 84, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(2A) Section [Prohibition of fees in contracts for services: letting of residential accommodation] extends only to England.’.
Stella Creasy
Like a pub quiz, we now come to the lucky dip round of the Bill, with a number of different issues being taken together. I am conscious that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am always eager to please.
Let me start with new clause 8. A number of provisions have been proposed to deal with ticket touting—a subject about which I know many Members feel strongly. I shall also deal with new clause 22, which deals with fees. We have already tried today to abolish fees for debt management, and we would now like to abolish fees for tenants, which is what consumers need. I shall also talk about businesses and consumers, new clauses 13 to 15 and the Government amendments.
Ticket touting is an issue about which many of us are concerned. We see the damage it is doing to a range of industries by distorting prices and access to entertainment activities. Ticket bot machines—I am not sure whether all Members are aware of them—are pieces of software that impersonate individual visitors to ticket vendor websites and automatically make multiple ticket purchases. What does that mean in practice? It means that many of us as fans of music, sport or light entertainment do not get a look in. It means that millions of fans have never been able to get a ticket for a range of different events because all the tickets are sold out within minutes: they are sold to a machine, not to fellow fans. Those tickets are then resold at an exorbitant price.
According to Ticketmaster USA, one group of scalpers were requesting 200,000 tickets a day in this way. We certainly know that the secondary ticket market for the resale of tickets is worth up to £1 billion a year. Those MPs who are members of the Monty Python fan club—I see it in many of their speeches as they are certainly “the knights who say ‘Ni!’”—will be aware of the outcry after all the tickets for the Monty Python show disappeared in that way. Perhaps the Monty Python foot will fall on me for making that joke—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) seems to be making a face to suggest that it should. Those of us who are fans of the Stone Roses were horrified to see the band’s gigs automatically sell out in that way. Tickets for a Kate Bush gig were also taken out. They were originally sold for £49 but within minutes were on a resale site for £490. For the Stone Roses, tickets that should have been a mere £55 were being sold for £1,000 a time—well beyond the means of the average fan of such phenomenal music.
The Secretary of State has claimed that ticket resellers are classic entrepreneurs because they fill a gap that they have identified in the market. With the greatest respect, I fear that the new Secretary of State has misunderstood the market in ticket sales and quite what these businesses are doing by distorting people’s access. He presumes that consumers are able to compete fairly against these automatic machines, but that is simply not the case.
Let me be clear that our amendments are not designed to stop the resale of tickets. I told the Committee and I will tell the House that I was deeply disappointed to have to sit here late one evening and give up my tickets to see the great band, the Wonder Stuff. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) will know of the band’s work. I was looking to resell my ticket and, as a genuine fan, I wanted it to go to another fan so that they could hear the beauty and the wonder that is “Dizzy”.
What we are talking about is finding a way to make this work for the fans and the consumers, rather than the botnets. Our new clauses deal with the three clear issues. First, we want to apply to the secondary market the guidance about what information should be provided to a consumer when buying a product. There is clearly a gap in which these companies are profiting. There is confusion and a lack of information about what people are being sold. Some of us have had constituents tell us that they have been sold a ticket through a secondary reseller market only to find that it is a fake.
Secondly, we want to give greater protection for events of national significance. We know that there is widespread concern across the sporting industry about the real fans being locked out of games by these kinds of practices. I want to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and the tireless campaigning he has done on the forthcoming rugby world cup. Millions of fans will not be able to attend events because of the actions of these companies and the touts.
Thirdly, we want to strengthen co-operation between the enforcement agencies and the secondary sites so that there is more protection for consumers and we can all be confident that when we buy a ticket for something, it is what we think it is and we can get a ticket in the first place.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend’s suggested reforms be able to deal with the appalling situation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) whereby tickets for next year’s rugby world cup in the Cardiff Millennium centre—good stadium that it is—are now on sale for £1,560 for a £250 ticket? I would have thought that £250 is enough for the average rugby follower, but £1,560 is an absolute disgrace.
Stella Creasy
The new clauses and amendments would deal with that. I understand that the tickets for the rugby world cup are not yet formally on sale. The fact that they are already being marketed on secondary sites at such prices demonstrates the scale of the problem that we need to tackle.
I pay tribute to the tremendous and tireless work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who will speak about her new clauses later. I also pay tribute to what has been done by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has also tabled a new clause on this subject, shares the widespread concern that is felt.
Stella Creasy
I will, but only briefly, because I am conscious of the time, and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a number of new clauses and amendments himself.
Philip Davies
Given what the hon. Lady said about not wanting to encourage the secondary ticket market, may I take it as read that she will support my new clause 12, which would guarantee people a refund from the organiser if they are not able to go to the event? If they cannot go and they cannot get a refund, they will not have much choice other than to sell the ticket on.
Stella Creasy
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause responds to a slightly different challenge, and presents a practical challenge in relation to how it could be applied, but let me make one thing very clear, in case he did not hear me say it the first time. We are not suggesting that there should not be a market for the selling on of tickets; we are saying that what the ticket touts are doing is distorting the market for consumers. That is separate from the issue of whether people can obtain a refund within 24 hours. Let me caution the hon. Gentleman that some aspects of his proposal may not work in a practical sense, whereas we are presenting practical proposals.
New clause 8, in particular, has learnt the lessons of the Olympic and paralympic games. Tickets for those games were given particular protection to enable people to be confident that they could obtain them. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 levied fines of up to £5,000 for the reselling of tickets at a profit. The Home Secretary increased that to £20,000, citing the threat from serious and organised criminal groups. We know that ticket touting is being used to support a range of criminal activities. New clause 8 relates to events of national significance. Let us make sure that rugby fans can go to the world cup: it surely cannot be all that difficult to legislate for that.
New clause 16 seeks to get to the root of the problem, which is that people do not necessarily know what they are being sold. A unique identifier is a simple way in which to ensure that when someone buys a ticket, it is a ticket for a particular gig, show or match. The venues themselves will have already given out identifying information, whether it is a seat number or a stall number. We are suggesting that they should be required to provide that information at the point of sale, so that people can be confident about what they are buying. That will enable the event organisers to identify those in, for instance, rugby clubs who are already selling on tickets that they have been given and are misusing their relationship to give out the information.
We think that that accords very well with what the Minister said in Committee about the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which she believed would address the issues related to selling. She said that they
“set out…the information that a trader should provide to a consumer for all distance sales—which would include tickets”.
In particular, she said that they gave details of
“the main characteristics of the goods”.––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2014; c. 183.]
We believe that new clause 16 would simply put that into practice in the context of the secondary ticketing market, providing clarity for all who are concerned about what they are buying. It accords with consumer regulation, and we hope that the Government will support it, even if they fear that some of the other new clauses relating to ticket touting would be difficult to implement. We certainly hope that they will listen to the clarion call from new clause 8. Surely everyone, in the House and outside, agrees that it cannot be right for us not to be confident that it is the fans who are able to obtain tickets to attend events of sporting significance, whether they obtain them online or offline.
I know that other Members want to talk about ticket touting, and I shall therefore move on to the subject of letting agents’ fees.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
The city of Glasgow is about to host the Commonwealth games, and a great deal of effort has been put into safeguarding tickets. Some of us have been shouting for a long time “Make ticket touting illegal!” Once it is illegal, we can take care of the other little bits and pieces, but should we not make it illegal right now so that we can know exactly where we are?
Stella Creasy
The new clauses and amendments are designed to make progress on issues of precisely that kind. One of the problems of ticket touting is trying to identify who is responsible for the crime that is taking place. Making the seller of the ticket give the details of that ticket will enable us to identify its provenance and who is selling it. We shall then be able to crack down on the people involved, whether it involves the rugby world cup or another event, so that organisations will not have their tickets sold on when they do not wish that to happen. It will give that kind of flexibility, and it reflects the all-party group work done on some of these issues. I hope there will be support from across the House.
Stella Creasy
If the hon. Lady wants to suggest some tweets, I will happily take them, but I am sure everyone will appreciate it if we can move on to the question of letting fees.
Stella Creasy
There are already criminal elements to what we are talking about. What we are talking about in this legislation is the information provided to a consumer—this is, after all, a consumer rights Bill—that could help address the problems caused by ticket touting, and it reflects the work being done by the all-party group. [Interruption.] Well, this is a separate issue about what we can do for consumers, and with that in mind I want to move on to new clause 22 because, as I have said, there is a lucky dip element to the amendments before us and it is about letting fees.
I pay tribute to the work done in this area by my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East. I see first hand in my constituency the problems caused by increasingly difficult access to housing and affordable housing, particularly within the private rented sector. We know that 9 million people in England are living in rented homes and they are paying on average over £1,000 more a year in rent than they did in 2010. That is why we have to reform the private rented sector. The costs that people are facing are unsustainable. I have families in my constituency spending between 60% and 70% of their monthly income on rent alone. They cannot make ends meet.
There is a wider debate to be had about the length of tenancies and the levels of rent, but this amendment, like the previous amendments I was speaking to, relates to consumer legislation, and in particular the specific issue of fees and whether they should be charged.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The issue my hon. Friend is outlining, and that our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the current shadow Housing Minister, has raised, is very important. It is particularly an issue for us in Blackpool and many other seaside towns, where, because of degrees of internal transience, some families have to move two or three times a year. That exacerbates the whole issue of letting fees.
Stella Creasy
I entirely agree. We see it in London as well, where people are having to move: every single time they move a fee is applied, and those fees are extortionate and are anti-consumer, as I shall explain.
The average such fee is about £355, but there are great variations. In my constituency of Walthamstow, in the work we have done on the “home sweet home” campaign, we found some fees as high as £827. We found renters being asked to pay fees for having pets, for having their houses cleaned and for a whole range of other practices, and we can see the consequences. We also know that 94% of letting agencies impose a fee on top of rent in advance and a deposit. There is therefore a huge sum of money for people to find. One constituent had to find £4,000 before he and his family could move into a property.
One in seven of those who use an agency are charged over £500 in agency fees before finding the deposit or rent in advance. Mystery shopping by Shelter found that some renters are routinely being charged £700. Over the past three years, one in four people who have dealt with a letting agency have said they have had to borrow money to pay that fee, which is of relevance to our previous debate. One in six is cutting down on food or heating to meet the cost of that fee, and four in 10 experience money worries as a direct result of that fee. If that fee is being applied every single year because people are moving again and again, we can see how quickly these sums can cause huge problems for consumers.
Some, perhaps those on one side of the coalition, will say what we need to do is make sure there is transparency. Certainly we explored whether people knowing the kind of fees they were facing—if everyone was upfront about the amount of money they were going to charge as a fee for introducing clients to a landlord, for example—could be one way of addressing this. That is a bit like somebody being tied to the train tracks and being told the train timetable, however, because in the current market many tenants have little option but to try to borrow to find that fee and then deal with the financial consequences. While I appreciate that one half of the coalition has now understood that fees are a challenge, the argument that simply knowing how much those fees are is enough in itself to deal with these problems simply does not wash. And nor does capping fees, because it is anti-consumer to have two different organisations paying for the same service. That is what we are talking about here: a form of double-charging. How can both the landlord and the tenant pay for the same service at the same time and the agent act in the interests of both? How can a landlord be confident that they are getting the best tenants if the agent also has the tenant’s interests at heart? How can a tenant be confident that they are getting a decent landlord if the landlord is also being acted for by the agent? This is fundamentally an anti-competitive practice and we think it is therefore time to act. Our new clause would do something very simple: it would clarify that renters could not be charged a fee.
Stella Creasy
It is not simply an assumption; it is based on the evidence we have seen from Scotland, which is that this money would be incorporated in the centre of the tenancy and so that the landlord would pay the fee. We would expect the tenant to pay one fee—the credit referencing fee—but once the tenancy was secure and the landlord could therefore be confident that the person was back in the place, we would expect it to be refunded. We are very clear that the practice of charging fees to both parties at the same time is a conflict of interest and therefore needs to be addressed, which is what our proposal would do. It would spread the fee over the course of the tenancy.
Damian Hinds
Just to complete the point, is it also the hon. Lady’s assumption, and that of the Opposition, that were landlords to face greater fees, they would not seek to recoup that extra cost in some other way?
Stella Creasy
One issue is what landlords are charging for. I see landlords who are charging twice for credit referencing, because they are charging the landlord and the tenant that fee. [Interruption.] The presumption the hon. Gentleman makes is that all the fees are for different activities—
Stella Creasy
Our presumption is that the fees would then be taken on by the landlord and taken as part of the tenancy agreement. Our approach would resolve the problems we are seeing for tenants and the conflict of interest over whom the agent would act for. Our proposal is about making sure we deal with that conflict, particularly how for landlords and for tenants it creates a series of perverse incentives whereby both can be charged for the same service.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The problem is that if the letting agency loses an income it will seek to get it from elsewhere, so it is likely to increase its charges to the landlord. The landlord will then seek to recover that money, and from whom will the landlord seek to recover it? From the tenant.
Stella Creasy
I simply do not accept the picture the hon. Gentleman is painting. Scotland has banned fees on tenants, and the experience there has been an increase in the number of letting agents and no effect on the rents people are paying. The evidence shows that, as with the payday lenders, when we give tenants the muscle to remove this fee, the market shapes up. We have not seen an increase in the fees that tenants are facing; nor have we seen an exit from the market. Some of the fears the hon. Gentleman might have, which I understand, are not well founded, because a lot of the fees tenants are being asked to pay are not indicative of a service being provided; they are indicative of a profit-making machine. We are trying to deal with the detriment caused by the ability of agents to charge fees to two parties at the same time. By making this a fee for the landlord, it is clear whose interest the agent is acting in.
As I say, we have dealt with the particular issue here, because we have listened to the landlords and letting agents who have expressed concerns about tenants who may not be what they seem. In that instance, there would be a case for being able to charge a fee to the tenant which would be refunded, but the alternative of letting this practice continue and seeing the kind of fees that we are seeing, and therefore the problems that are being caused, is also unsustainable. I hope that Government Members, particularly those who have now recognised there is a problem with the fees in themselves, will go that stage further and recognise that there is a problem with this form of double-charging, support our proposals and learn from the experience in Scotland on this issue.
As I am conscious of the time, I shall move on; I appreciate that there are a number of Members who wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Hampshire, who has made many useful contributions this afternoon, will get to speak in the following debate.
I briefly want to speak to amendment 6. It may come as a surprise to some to see the Government resisting the work of the Federation of Small Businesses, which is trying to help small businesses that are struggling with their consumer contracts. Members in this House may have first-hand experience of that, as we are, after all, small businesses and will have dealt with business-to-business contracts, and many may not realise that they have different levels of consumer protection as a result.
The FSB has recently published a report on small businesses which points out that it makes much more sense to give micro-businesses the same consumer protection as private individuals. After all, it is unreasonable to expect a micro-business to have the same level of legal qualification and expertise to deal with a contract as that of a larger body, and that is what amendment 6 addresses. I note that the FSB has given its support to this amendment. I was surprised when the Minister said earlier that the FSB did not support giving consumer rights to businesses. That has not been the briefing that we have had from it; indeed, it supports this amendment. Will the Minister set out when she expects to give small businesses the kind of consumer protection they need, because it will be one fewer worry for them?
I wish now to touch on some of the other new clauses. New clause 14 deals with Ofcom and switching. We certainly think this is a good idea, and we wish to see the Government following it through. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was not here earlier when we were debating new clause 3 and new schedule 1 and making it easier for consumers to be able to switch. We recognise that there are problems. It is unusual for the UK, by comparison with other nations, to have this issue, and it will be interesting to know whether the Minister is considering it.
I look forward to the hon. Member for Shipley making his case for new clause 13. I certainly agree that transparency is important. The laws governing animal welfare at slaughter, at both EU and UK level, require animals to be stunned before slaughter, but they make an exemption to that requirement for religious slaughter, which is carried out by members of the Jewish and Muslim communities.
We are concerned about whether this amendment has a significant effect on animal welfare and implications beyond that. In particular, we must ensure that our laws strike the right balance between concern for animal welfare, which many of us have, transparency for consumers and respect for the traditions of different businesses and different communities. We also recognise that a lot of work has already been done on this matter in the European Union, and it would be sensible to learn some of the lessons on the wider issues such as how goods and foods are labelled. It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that—perhaps not on Europe but on the research that is being done.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a law that caused confusion in this area rather than clarity. He focuses on halal and kosher food, but the Opposition believe that respect implies an active attitude towards others rather than a passive attitude, and certainly our position is to seek proper engagement with all faith groups before we move forward on such a measure.
Let me turn now to new clause 15, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We supported it in Committee and would support it again. It is an incredibly important amendment and I urge Members to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. We do not believe it is acceptable to leave it to consumers to know whether they have a death trap in their house.
Finally, I want to say a bit about Government amendments 14 to 20 and the very welcome U-turn that seems to have been made. In Committee, we were concerned that consumers could be left waiting many months for a refund, but the Minister suggested that the Government believed there were potential disadvantages of introducing a time limit that outweighed the benefits that such a change could bring. We suggested 30 days in which to get a refund, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have gone one stage further and said that people should get their money back in 14 days. That gives me great hope that while the Minister may be saying “computer says no” at the moment to some of the things that we have been talking about today and in Committee, we will see further concessions in due course. We shall welcome them accordingly.
Philip Davies
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I was, surprisingly, rather encouraged by her response to my amendments. It could be a red-letter day for me, getting support across the House for some of my amendments.
I want to focus mainly on new clause 13, which is about the labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will seek to press it to a vote, should the opportunity arise. It is an issue of great importance to the public, and we have heard an awful lot of commentary on it in the media and among many of our constituents in recent weeks. They would appreciate seeing where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue.
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
If I have a ticket to the Lords test match, for example, or to the rugby world cup final, and I go into my local pub and someone says to me, “It is my lifetime ambition to go there, I would give £4,000 for a ticket,” what is wrong with my saying that I will give up my ticket and they can go instead? Everybody is happy, nobody has lost out, but Labour want to interfere with people’s aspirations. Why should that be banned? If someone does not want to pay the higher price, they should not pay it. Nobody is forced to pay the inflated prices if they do not want to.
If the secondary sale of tickets bothers event promoters so much, why do they not do something practical to stop it? Why sell all the tickets in one go, for example? Why not hold them back? Why put them all on sale so that they are sold within 43 seconds, meaning that they can be resold at inflated prices? If promoters are so bothered, why not sell tickets bit by bit, week by week, month by month so that there are still tickets available the week before the event? That would remove the secondary ticketing market, but they choose not to do it. That can only lead me to presume that the event organisers are shedding crocodile tears, as they are happy to get all the money from the tickets being snapped up.
An ICM poll showed that 83% agreed with the premise:
“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it to just as I can any other private property.”
Jenny Willott
Given the time restrictions, I shall say that we support the intention behind the new clause but not its wording, as there are a number of problems with it. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman after the debate the points that he has made to see if there is a way forward. With those remarks, I hope that hon. Members are happy that I have covered all the issues that were raised in the debate.
Stella Creasy
A number of issues have been raised. I am conscious of the time so I shall be brief and discuss the two new clauses that we want to push to a vote because we are not satisfied with what the Government have said. First, on new clause 22, which deals with letting fees, the Government should realise that it is not a small minority of letting agents charging fees. Indeed, good landlords do not want to lose tenants who cannot afford those fees.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) was disrespectful about the idea that tweeting in the Chamber was a good idea. Let me tell her that in the past hour we have had an example of a fee of £1,300 to change the names of two tenants on a tenancy agreement. Those are the sorts of fees that we are talking about. Shelter disputes the evidence that the Minister gave about there being no impact on rent inflation in Scotland since the measure was introduced. Members have to make a decision about whether they are on the side of the consumer or on the side of business. We are firmly of the view that we need to be on the side of the consumer in this instance in changing the way in which the rental market works. Rental fees are anti-competitive, and there is a conflict between who acts for the landlord and who acts for the agent. We need to change that, so we want to push new clause 22 to a vote.
We also want to push new clause 16 to a vote, because it is clear that Members across the House want to see action on ticket touting. New clause 16 puts into practice the amendments that the Government proposed on consumer information and consumer evidence. The Minister discussed the rugby world cup, but it is clear that tickets are already being sold on secondary sites, so the measures that she discussed have not had an impact. We need to make progress on that too.
We are happy to take advice on amendments on businesses, and we are happy to accept the Minister’s assurances about refunds. We are seeking more Government U-turns, but on letting agent fees and ticket touting it is time for action, and that is exactly what the Opposition seek in the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Goods to be as described: meat products
‘(1) All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.
(2) A food outlet is anywhere where food is served to the public.’.—(Philip Davies.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.