Consumer Rights Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(9 years, 10 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(9 years, 12 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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
Of course Britain will be better off because we will not have the mess of an economy on the brink of collapse, a banking system on its knees, and an 11% budget deficit. The only way to help people in this country is to grow the British economy. What the figures reveal today is that Britain is coming back, but we cannot take that for granted. People are still experiencing the impact of the shadow Chancellor’s economic policies, and the only thing he can say to us is “Why are you not clearing up our mess quickly enough?” That is literally what he is saying; it is absolutely pathetic. His car crash was caused by a seven-point turn that he was trying. Why does he not just get up, make a simple U-turn, admit that he got it wrong and that Britain is growing again?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What comparative assessment he has made of trends in the annual rates of inflation and growth in average earnings since May 2010.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there have been significant falls in real earnings as a direct but delayed result of the 2008 recession. The actions that the Government are taking are working, including taking 3.2 million people out of income tax by 2015-16, thanks to our policy of increasing the income tax personal allowance, and also because of the strong, sustained and welcome growth that we see in the figures today.
Stella Creasy
Of course, one of the other things that are growing in our economy is personal debt. We know that 40% of the public struggle to make it to payday, and for a third of those people it is repayments on the debts they built up under this Government that are the problem. What impact does the Minister think that that personal debt mountain will have on his long-term economic plan?
Danny Alexander
Household debt income ratios have fallen during this Parliament, as the hon. Lady will know, but—this is a good lesson for the Labour party—there is no shortcut for increasing people’s living standards, which is the answer to the question she poses, and no short cut to increased productivity in our economy. That means increasing growth in the economy and sticking to the coalition’s plan, which is being delivered by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in this Government. That is the important thing to do for the next few years to ensure that we have a stronger and more sustainable economy in this country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicky Morgan
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government remain committed to ending child poverty by 2020 and to the Child Poverty Act 2010. We understand that poverty is about more than income alone. As he has said, we need to focus on the root causes, one of which is poor mental health, in which I have taken a particular interest.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of domestic energy prices on consumer price inflation.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
Consumer price inflation was 2% in December. That is the first time it has been at or below the 2% target since November 2009. It is well below half the peak of 5.2% in September 2011. The Office for Budget Responsibility is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, and factored in energy prices in the latest forecasts for consumer price inflation.
Stella Creasy
Given what the Minister says about inflation, in plain English, can she tell us whether she accepts that the energy bills of my constituents and those of all hon. Members have gone up this winter? Does she think that is good or bad for them and our economy?
Nicky Morgan
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Yes, energy bills have gone up, but how come she voted for a decarbonisation target last autumn that would have added a further £125 to all average bills?
Danny Alexander
I do not think that that analysis is correct. Thirty-six transport projects worth more than £1.7 billion have been delivered, upgrades to more than 150 railway stations and 350 flood and coastal erosion schemes have been completed, superfast broadband last year passed an extra 200,000 premises and electricity generation schemes are being completed across the country. Just last week we completed, several months ahead of schedule, the M4 and M5 managed motorway projects near Bristol—another example of infrastructure being delivered by this Government.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
Stella Creasy
When the right hon. Gentleman was first asked to vote on the issue, the figure was 1 million; now it is 5 million—that is, people in hock to payday lenders. Does the Chancellor therefore regret voting against the cap on the cost of credit so many times?
Mr Osborne
I was the shadow Chancellor for five years and never once did the Labour Government propose a cap on payday lending. It is this coalition Government who are introducing a cap on payday lending. I would have thought that of all people the hon. Lady, considering her campaign, would welcome that.
Consumer Rights Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the Secretary of State’s passion for this subject, and I challenge the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that it is boring. I am delighted that so many hon. Members have come into the Chamber to stand firm on the idea that consumer rights are a key concern. Despite the short notice, I hope that they will join us in agreeing that it is important to have a strong consumer rights framework in this country.
We agree that the Bill is long overdue. The previous Government introduced a White Paper on delivering a better deal for consumers. It was designed to take action on rogue traders, empower and assist trading standards and bring in a consumer rights Bill to help modernise consumer sales law, so giving consumers the real power that we all want. The Bill should be the culmination of that elephantine gestation.
We therefore welcome the idea of bringing in consumer rights legislation to meet the test that the Government set on their website, which states:
“The government believes that consumers who are well-informed about their rights and what they’re buying are more confident and more likely to spend money well, getting better deals or buying new goods and services.”
It seems to the Opposition that a good first test to set the Bill is whether it meets this ambition: does it help consumers not to be big spenders, but smart ones, and does it give them the information and rights to be able to use their money well and wisely? I am afraid that the Opposition believe that the Bill falls at that first hurdle, in that it provides neither information nor rights, and it makes the Secretary of State a consolidator, not a champion of consumer rights. As such, this legislative opportunity short-changes, rather than strengthens, the pounds in our pockets.
The Opposition know that healthy, fair and competitive markets and effective methods for information-sharing across providers are vital for building an economy that works both for consumers and for businesses. We know that savvy consumers make for better customers for businesses, and that better-informed citizens get better outcomes.
In my speech, I will set out the scale of the challenge that demands a roar, not a whimper, and a Government who will speak—indeed, shout out—for consumers and their rights in a free, fair and functioning economy to provide a consumer rights framework that does not wait until people get ripped off before coming into force. In explaining what that means, I want to set out the areas of the Bill that need to be strengthened and on which we will therefore table amendments.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
This is a Bill on consumer rights, and many consumers would, for example, like the opportunity to shop freely at a large store on a Sunday, as they already can in Scotland. Does the hon. Lady agree with extending the rights of consumers to spend their money in whichever shops they want, whenever they want on a Sunday, or perhaps with devolving that down to local authorities, so that they can vary Sunday trading hours if they so wish? Is she really that much on the side of consumers?
Stella Creasy
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is on the Public Bill Committee, because I would enjoy many such conversations with him. His interest in how widely consumer rights can be applied is legendary in this House and in the country. We need a fundamental understanding of where rights for consumers make a difference to our economy. We believe that the Bill needs to meet such a test, and I shall set that out today. I hope that I can make clear and compelling arguments about why the Bill should make a real change to people’s lives and redress the balance of power for consumers.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend has already proved herself to be a superb champion of consumer rights since entering the House in 2010. I am following what she is saying about the need for the Bill to go further. Does she agree that one real issue, particularly in my constituency of Blackpool South, is the amount of counterfeit goods that are regularly sold—worth tens of millions of pounds every year—and the crucial role of trading standards? Many trading standards bodies have been affected by the cuts in funding to local government. Does she agree that the Government need to look at supporting such bodies more centrally, especially in their role in relation to counterfeit goods?
Stella Creasy
I want to come on to precisely my hon. Friend’s question about trading standards, and about how to have stronger powers for consumers at local level, which is one issue that the Bill does not seem to understand or to address.
I am honoured that the Secretary of State made time this morning to read my article for PoliticsHome. I, too, took the time to read his speech last night, and I very much enjoyed his attempt to use Jedi mind tricks on the Government. In particular, he paraphrased one of my personal heroes, Obi-Wan Kenobi, in his attempt to claim that “This is not the recovery you are looking for”, which is recognition that consumers are bearing the burden of this Government’s economic policy as a result of their lopsided attempt to balance the budget. I am therefore glad that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that growth is being driven only by consumer spending, because many of us are concerned about the impact of that.
Although the Secretary of State celebrates the idea that consumers have dipped into savings that they hold for a rainy day, I have to tell him that he is mistaken to presume that they have done so only for long-term investments. His own Money Advice Service shows that a third of British people have no money put aside for rainy days, due to the everyday costs of living, and that those who have such savings have been forced to dip into them to cover those costs, with three quarters of the people surveyed having been hit by a bill that threw them off-budget in the course of the past year. Indeed, a third of people in our country who now have no savings at all have said that not having a high enough income is the problem causing them not to save. We agree that we should be extremely worried about an economy in which, every day, people get further and further into personal debt. We are also worried that when the Government are presented with an opportunity to do something about that, they stand aside. They talk strongly about national debt, but say nothing about personal debt.
I know that the Secretary of State will want to blame the Treasury for the National Audit Office’s damning indictment that Government failure to assess the impact on consumers of investment in infrastructure might lead to consumers facing financial hardship and unplanned taxpayer support being required. That damning report shows that Whitehall Departments are forgetting the needs of consumers, and therefore the cumulative impact of household bills. I know that some in the Government want to cast the Public Accounts Committee as the dark side, but I fear that consumers will feel the Sith inhabit the Treasury, not Committee Room 16. Why does the Secretary of State therefore not use the Bill to address that gap and to help such hard-pressed households, as well as to show that he gets the need to tackle the rip-off charges and broken markets in goods and services that they face?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that companies selling products often overlook the rights of consumers on islands and in some rural areas, saying that they will not deliver to them, and often overlook the best distribution network, which is the Royal Mail? Does she agree that the Bill should ensure that consumers who do not live on the mainland are given equal access to the market?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman makes some strong points about exactly the kind of contracts that consumers get into and the kind of service standards they should expect. That the Bill will simply consolidate existing rights, rather than address some of the challenges, shows that it could go much further on such issues.
It would not take much to make a real difference to households across this country. The Money Advice Service research shows that if consumers saved just £3 a day, it would be enough to cover their average unexpected bills in a year. That may not sound like much, but for millions of British consumers who have already used up their savings or are getting into debt in dealing with the cost of living crisis created by this Government, it is a stretch. For millions of people, reducing their outgoings would also make a real difference to their financial precariousness. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that about 4 million British families do not have enough savings to cover their rent or mortgage for more than a month, and that more than 5,000 households became homeless in the past year alone because of arrears.
I hope that the Secretary of State will at least do better than his Cabinet colleague, the Prime Minister, who denies that living standards are falling as the public pay for the cost of this Government’s policies. The Prime Minister claims that it is a matter for statisticians to argue, but I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that it is a matter on which politicians should help out. It is not our role to make decisions for consumers, but it is our role to help to make decision making easier.
We could also help with the cost of living crisis, because it is about not just job creation, but every extortionate charge to which the Government turn a blind eye or every broken market they ignore, and that all adds to the struggles that people face. Every unfair service contract term and every bad decision that consumers are duped into making is more money down the drain.
Stephen Lloyd
I hate to interrupt the hon. Lady in full powerful flow, but I want to ask her whether there is anything about the Bill that she likes, or does the whole direction of travel and everything that we are doing on the cost of living crisis, which she has mentioned about five times, mean that it is just a poor Bill?
Stella Creasy
I can safely say that I will please the hon. Gentleman by talking about the cost of living crisis an awful lot more. I said at the very start that we welcome the Bill. Our concern is that this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to get consumer rights legislation right. There are so many challenges that the Bill does not face that it will become a missed opportunity, to the detriment of all consumers and all our constituents, who are paying the price for our failure to tackle these issues. It will have minimal impact on the problems that we are seeing every day in our constituencies. The fact that nothing in the Bill is of particular concern tells us everything we need to know about its narrow ambitions in addressing the problems that our constituents face.
Stella Creasy
I think it will help the hon. Gentleman if I go on to explain my case, but I will give way to him once more.
Stephen Lloyd
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is at least something that the coalition has brought the Bill forward? Many consumer groups and people who are involved in this area are very supportive of the Bill. That has to be a good thing. Perhaps it is a shame that the Labour party did not bring forward such legislation six, seven, eight, nine, 10 or even 15 years ago.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is again being a little uncharitable. I pointed out that consumer rights legislation in this country has had an elephantine gestation. If his argument is that something is better than nothing, when we could be aiming for the best for this country, I think that people will see the difference between the choices of the Government and the Opposition.
I want to set out our ambition today. If the hon. Gentleman is on the Committee, I encourage him to support it. We want to get the best possible consumer rights framework in this country and truly tackle the detriment that people in our communities are facing. We want to prevent problems from occuring in the first place, rather than waiting for people to be ripped off. That is the ethos that we want to see in the Bill. We know that when we do not get consumer rights right in this country, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who pay the biggest price.
Consumer Futures and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have found that lower-income families can end up paying £19 more a week on average because they face higher charges for the same products. Their research shows that such poverty premiums can add up to 10p for every £1 that is spent by households. Poorer households in this country are subsidising richer households as a result of the levels of detriment that they face.
I will set out for the Secretary of State four questions that we believe could make the Bill better and that will be the focus of our efforts in Committee.
Mrs Moon
Often, the poorest families shop away from the main street. Something that has long concerned me is that furniture dealers in white vans are selling products that are lethal because they do not meet British fire-retardant foam standards. If a fire starts, it can literally kill a family before they get out of the room. How can we tackle that problem and ensure that poor families are protected by consumer protection legislation, not just those who can afford to shop on the main street?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is spot on and shows why the Bill falls short. That issue in the furniture industry reveals the problems that we have with the ombudsman system. I will come on to that matter and talk about her work on it.
The first question that we want to ask relates to the role of competition and challenge within markets to produce choice and value for money, which the Secretary of State spoke about. We agree that competition is a key driver of quality, innovation and personalisation in products, goods and services. However, in many markets in Britain, people are paying over the odds for essential goods and services because the barriers to entry into those markets have created dominance for a small number of providers or because there is outdated regulation. The existence of many companies does not always mean that there will be competition either. The ability of small firms to compete with larger providers is a key element of a free and functioning market.
If the Secretary of State wants examples of where those problems lie, there are many. My right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) have been clear about the broken nature of our energy markets. Six companies dominate the retail market in the UK, supplying to 98% of the domestic market and 82% of the smaller business market. The fact that no new entrant has managed to challenge that dominance suggests that there are significant barriers to newcomers that inhibit competition. That is reflected in the prices that consumers pay. A lack of competition in the retail market for energy has resulted in consumers paying £3.6 million more than they need to every year. Switching levels in that market are the lowest that they have been for years. The low levels of switching mean that the big energy companies have a captured market, which again reduces the incentives to keep prices competitive.
It is not only in the energy market—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We require only one speaker at a time, so I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) would stop shouting across the Chamber.
Stella Creasy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be delighted to take an intervention from the hon. Lady at any point if she would care to make one. I am sure that whatever she is chuntering from a sedentary position is absolutely fascinating.
It is not only in the energy market that we see such problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) have highlighted similar problems for consumers in the pensions market. The current restrictions on the operations of the National Employment Savings Trust mean that it is impossible for it to compete with other providers, to the detriment of consumers. It is a market where hidden charges and fees create problems for people. There are penalty charges for people who want to change jobs and exit charges for savers who switch schemes. Which? found cases of consumers having up to 50% of their savings being absorbed by such charges and costs.
If the Secretary of State does not believe me on the energy and pensions markets, let us look at my passion, the payday lending market, in which a lack of competition is clearly causing problems for consumers. Not every consumer in that market gets into financial difficulty, but enough of them do because the way in which it operates causes huge detriment to the consumer and huge problems for our economy. The National Audit Office estimates that unscrupulous behaviour by firms in that market costs consumers at least £450 million a year. The lack of competition to provide services to the customers of those companies, as well as a barrier to accessing alternative services being created by borrowing from them in the first place, enables the exploitation of their customers.
If the Secretary of State is not interested in the impact of high-cost credit, perhaps he will look at the banking market. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) have again highlighted the raw deal that consumers get. The pricing power of big banks means that they dominate the market in key products such as mortgages. Banks are able to retain their dominance by making it hard for customers to move their custom. Some 1.3 million people have switched their current account in the past year, which is a churn rate of just 2% to 3%. Studies show that a truly competitive industry would have a switching rate nearer to 10%. It is not only in the dominance in the current account market that we see problems. When banks are able to set their own terms, they can set requirements such as those for buy-to-let mortgages that force borrowers to offer only short-term tenancies, which are causing problems in the housing market.
Given the Secretary of State’s speech last night and his commitment to competition, I would have thought that a healthy dose of competition across the sectors I have mentioned for the benefit of consumers is what the doctor would have ordered. However, we do not see that in the Bill.
The second question that I want to pose for the Bill is about the importance of information flows, which is linked to free markets. What are the Government doing in the Bill to address the information gaps and asymmetries that enable consumer detriment? We know that data are vital to ensuring that consumers may compare goods and services in order to make their own choices. We know that a lack of information helps providers to hide behind confusion and a lack of transparency. The Government’s own research shows that if consumers knew more about products, they would be able to gain £150 million to £240 million a year. However, only 13% of those who use price comparison sites get the lowest priced deal. The Government admit that one reason for that is that people do not have accurate information about their past usage and therefore find it difficult to predict future usage.
We are at the bottom of the European league for consumers being able to switch and shop around to get the deals that they want. The contrast with countries such as Australia is clear. Mass movement switching campaigns have led to one in four Australian citizens being part of schemes that get them better deals not just on energy, but on health insurance and financial services.
Consumers have legal rights to request access to personal data, but half the respondents to Which? were not even aware of that right and very few people have exercised it. I am sure that the Secretary of State will point to the midata project, which is a voluntary scheme to give consumers access to their energy, mobile and financial services data. However, that scheme has struggled to have any impact for a simple and obvious reason: companies have little incentive to release commercial data that could convince a customer to go elsewhere. We welcome the fact that the Government took an order-making power through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to compel certain businesses to release such data, but that affects only four core sectors and has not yet been applied. It could be applied more widely if secondary legislation were used. That is another missed opportunity in the Bill. Let us revise the Bill to unlock the capacity of information to improve outcomes for all consumers and citizens.
That capacity would help in many sectors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) has run a tireless campaign, for example, on the lack of clarity in supermarket pricing. We have seen how some deals and special offers mislead shoppers when clear information is not provided. There are products that are more expensive than the original price when they are in a multi-buy offer; products that have been at a sale price for longer than the original price; and products whose prices are increased immediately before they go on offer, to make the discount appear more significant.
Supermarkets, like many other industries, hold a wealth of data about us as consumers that they use to design their pricing strategies. Making those data easily available—in principle, they are already public data—could transform consumers’ power to shop around and to know a good “buy one, get one free” deal from a dud one, unlike some coalition voters, I suspect.
Or the Secretary of State could learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) and use the Bill to help consumers protect their data and to deal with nuisance calls, which I know many Members are frustrated by. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), who is in her place, has campaigned on that issue. We know that 71% of landline customers say that they have received a live marketing call and 63% a recorded marketing message. The Information Commissioner receives 2,500 complaints a month from people sent unsolicited text messages, usually for debt or payment protection insurance claims. With 75% of landlines being registered with the Telephone Preference Service, the number of complaints shows that something is going seriously wrong. Again, the Bill will do nothing to help consumers protect their own data, which will be to their detriment.
We know that it is not enough just to have data, because they are not a disinfectant if the curtains are closed to the sunlight. Helping people make the right decisions the first time is key to outcomes, yet many people, especially those with complex needs or a lack of confidence, struggle to get the information and advice that they require to make effective decisions. In turn, that generates cost to the public purse, including the costs of putting it right. I know that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is in his place, feels strongly about that subject.
We know that when good advice is provided, services are improved. Indeed, one study in Nottingham showed that 40% of the cases dealt with by a local advice service referred to poor decision making in the public sector—what was called “preventable failure in the system”. A project that piloted advice services working with the council showed that 60% of those issues were preventable. When we see such studies and the impact of good advice and good access to data, the question is why the Government are not truly empowering consumers and citizens to bring them the benefits of the right changes. Why does the Bill not offer any action on that?
Where the Bill does offer input is on contract terms. It sets minimum standards that supplied goods must meet, sets out that they should be fit for purpose and satisfactory, and provides a legal right to reject faulty goods within 30 days of receiving them. Again, however, consumers will ask whether that will deal with the real problems with terms and conditions that they face time and time again. That must be our third challenge for the Bill.
A lack of clarity about prices causes many of us to purchase products that are not suitable. It is about the most basic of consumer needs—to know the cost of the product that we are purchasing and what our money will buy us. Prominent pricing is not the same as transparent pricing. Hidden charges are a problem for too many in our society. One study found that buying insurance through a broker could push up premiums by £500 a year, and that the gulf was caused largely by the added expense of the broker’s fees.
Many consumers experience the frustration of signing up for services or goods and then finding that the terms and conditions are varied because the prices are not clear. A constituent wrote to me this week about a website called Tax Return Gateway, a copycat of a Government website that looks suspiciously like the real deal. My constituent was charged £500 for filling in her tax return, and only after she had paid it was she told that that was the fee for the service, not the tax return itself. Such sites exist for a whole range of public services, including passport applications, visa programmes and driving licences. It seems a simple principle that people should be told the price before they purchase something, but again, the Bill will do nothing to provide for that.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady raises an important point. There are scam versions of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency sites, and many people do not understand what they are purchasing, far less the costs of it. They do not realise that they are only getting a form to apply for a road tax disc or whatever.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and if the Bill met the test of providing the best consumer rights framework that this country can have, such scams would be addressed. Again, we find the Bill wanting on that point, and we will look to address such challenges in Committee.
Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that Members should encourage their constituents simply to use the Government’s own website at gov.uk, and not to google other alternatives that can lead to scam sites?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman’s question reveals one challenge that we face. I would love to sit at a computer with him, google those websites and see whether he could tell the difference. Making that difficult is one thing that the companies in question do. It is fair to ask how we can empower consumers, but it is also fair to ask what we can do to ensure that someone knows precisely what they are buying. That does not need to be an unreasonable requirement on terms and conditions, but the Bill does not address that challenge.
The Bill also fails to address the problem of people paying for services that they cannot get the details of. I beg the House’s indulgence to mention a second case in my constituency. At present, 4,500 leaseholders in Walthamstow have buildings insurance via their leases, on top of which they pay a premium for terrorism cover. According to the freehold manager, that is on the basis that the plane bomber lived in my constituency. Indeed, the freehold manager has sent me newspaper coverage to justify that additional charge of £80 a household to leaseholders in my community on top of their buildings insurance. Yet my constituents cannot get the details of the policy that they are paying for, because the insurer claims that its deal is with the freehold manager, not with the leaseholders. It seems that they cannot test in a tribunal whether the charge is fair, and consequently whether they can challenge it.
If the Secretary of State will not listen to my cases as arguments for why pricing and contract information need to be addressed, perhaps he will listen to the many other Members who have raised similar issues about contract terms and who is selling goods. In particular, there is the question of secondary ticketing sales, which my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and forEltham (Clive Efford) and the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) have raised repeatedly.
We know that it is vital that there is a marketplace for the reselling of unwanted or unneeded tickets for events, because there is little scope for refunds or returns in that sector. However, there is also widespread abuse in the sector, because online touts can buy up tickets en masse to resell once an event has sold out. Indeed, Ticketmaster USA has estimated that for some high-profile events, up to 60% of available tickets can be taken in that way. Consumers who are unable to buy tickets on the first release must then pay over the odds to buy them from sites such as eBay or viagogo.
The secondary ticket market in this country thrives on a lack of clarity about who is selling a ticket and what right they have to do so, and it is estimated to be worth £1 billion a year. That is why I am surprised that the Secretary of State, as the Member for Twickenham, is not seeking to use the Bill to protect rugby fans in the run-up to the forthcoming world cup.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Lady with interest, and one cannot help but agree with her on a large number of issues. I recently had a case in my constituency of people being ripped off on what looked like a DVLA website. However, is there not a danger that if we tried to specify every possibility and detail, the Bill would become far too fine-grained and would ultimately be used much less than if we defined things more generally?
Stella Creasy
We can have that argument in Committee, but being clear about pricing is not about any one of the individual issues that I have mentioned. It is a fundamental principle that should be in contracts. That would benefit consumers and mean that businesses could be clear that they had sold goods, so that we would not have some of the problems that we see further down the road. One point for us to consider in Committee is whether we can make clear what should be specified in a contract across a range of industries. That is not being specific; it is a general principle. Surely the hon. Gentleman would want his constituents to know what they are buying in advance of buying it.
George Hollingbery
Again, I cannot disagree with the hon. Lady, and that is indeed what the Bill is intended to do. At the same time, she makes specific criticisms about all sorts of cases without recognising that it would be extremely challenging to produce a general rule that would capture them all in a way that the courts could interpret.
Stella Creasy
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that we can clarify what should be included in prominent pricing and at what point in the sale that information should be provided. Perhaps that reflects the Government’s small vision for consumer rights, because we could put that basic principle into the Bill and it would help to deal with a range of issues. The Government have chosen not to do that, and we are going to challenge them about it.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, especially about the secondary ticketing market. Does she agree that there is now demonstrable market failure, which is one of the measures that the Government always said they would need before they would regulate the market? Does she think that the time has now come when we need to legislate to do something about that parasitic economy?
Stella Creasy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue and seen at first hand the frustration of fans denied the opportunity to go to events. There are ways we can address that market, and principles about how sales are made and who has the opportunity to sell a product. We could put those clear and simple proposals into legislation and they would benefit not just the secondary ticketing market, but also some of the other markets under discussion. The Opposition have committed to testing the Government in Committee about why they feel they cannot provide that protection for people, and I hope the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) will reflect on that and agree with us. As he said, it is difficult to disagree with these issues, but we now need to act. It is no good wringing our hands when we could prevent some of those problems.
Stella Creasy
I am conscious of time and I would like to make a little progress, but I will let the hon. Lady intervene if she is quick.
Mrs Main
It slightly confuses the matter if the hon. Lady tries to bring secondary ticketing within the scope of the Bill. That is more about how touts get hold of tickets, rather than what people choose to pay should they buy a ticket from a secondary ticketing market. It would confuse the Bill’s good intentions if she tried to drag all that in.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady does not quite recognise that a contract involves both a vendor and a purchaser, and the terms of a contract can apply to both. That is the point of the amendments we will table. On secondary ticketing, for example—the Secretary of State should be interested in this as the Member for Twickenham—legislating to make the rugby world cup an event of national significance would require tickets to be resold through recognised ticket vendors at face value, as happened in 2012. It would then be illegal to sell tickets through any other means. Indeed, viagogo already has tickets on sale for that event at huge mark-ups, and tickets do not even go on sale until the autumn. Some 2.3 million tickets will be sold at between £7 and £15 for children, with a top price of £700 for adults. That means that touts will be able to cash in on those prices on top of that, and damage the affordable ticketing policy of the organisers. Surely it cannot be right for us not to include in the Bill a way of ensuring that if someone wants to sell a ticket at a certain price, they can.
Stella Creasy
I will give way to the Secretary of State who I am sure is a passionate rugby fan.
Vince Cable
Not least because the hon. Lady is looking after my constituency for me. Let me reassure her that I live on the road from Twickenham station to the rugby ground, and I am well aware of ticket touts as they operate outside my front door. There is, of course, a public order offence of ticket touting, and in addition, the hon. Lady might not be aware that there have been extensive discussions between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ticketmaster—the agent for the world cup—to ensure that those problems are minimised. It is not as if the issue is being overlooked.
Stella Creasy
I think the fact that the Secretary of State is considering the ticket touts rather than the rugby fans is the challenge. If we get consumer rights legislation right, rugby fans will be put first in such matters. That is why Labour, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), has offered to co-operate with the Government to get the legislation through and support the negotiations in time to protect rugby fans next year. The fact that the Bill is silent on such issues—I say this as a regular gig-goer in my time off—causes me great pain because it is consumers who suffer.
We see such problems not only in the secondary ticketing market but with letting agencies, because there are no regulations about how charges are levied, and there is a high demand for properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has highlighted those problems, including charges such as excessive up-front fees, additional letting agency fees, and people losing deposits.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is kind of the hon. Lady to give way, and laudable that she should try to cover every single possible thing that could possibly go wrong if we ever buy anything. I am not sure how long the Bill is at the moment, but I imagine that if we covered everything that could go wrong—surely that is the only way to be completely fair—we would not be able to get it through the door of the Committee Room.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for illustrating so vividly why the Government believe there must always be winners and losers in every element of policy. The Labour party believes that if we get the framework right, it would cover a range of industries. My point in describing the many different problems with current pricing and contracts is that if we took a different—indeed, stronger—approach to the laws on pricing and contract than that currently in the Bill, we could deal with a range of detrimental problems. Indeed, I would wager that if we get this right, two-thirds of the casework that many of us see would disappear overnight. Surely the merits of such a proposition alone would cause the hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether we can make the Bill stronger, and therefore better. That is the case we are trying to make.
We have already discussed letting agencies, and the way that charges and a lack of clarity over prices are a problem, but contracts do not cause problems only with pricing. The Minister will be as frustrated as I am about the lack of action on poor services, and I know she feels passionately that in her constituency, where residents are not receiving a mobile phone service they should be refunded. Despite raising the issue for months, she must be frustrated because nothing has happened, and I query whether her constituents are also frustrated. Although she is in charge of the Bill, and therefore has an opportunity to clarify when a refund for poor service would be due, the Bill will do little to help that issue. We would all like stronger powers of redress.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
On the contrary, the issue has been resolved and a mobile phone signal has been restored to my constituents, a number of whom are receiving compensation. It is perfectly possible to do such things under current legislation, and a lot of the issues the hon. Lady raises fall completely outside the remit of the Bill we are supposed to be discussing.
Stella Creasy
The Minister raises an interesting question about why, if the Bill will simply consolidate powers that she says are already effective, she does not use the opportunity to go further and deal with matters that she considers to be outside the legislation. She cannot have the argument both ways—either we need new consumer rights in this country, or we do not and she is wasting everybody’s time. Labour Members think there is a case for a new, stronger consumer rights legislative framework, which we are trying to set out, and part of that is about redress. I am delighted to hear that the Minister’s constituents have got redress for their mobile phone coverage, but I hope she will also consider how we can use the Bill for things such as nuisance calls, which she mentioned. This is about how we tackle such problems once and for all.
Mr MacNeil
There is a second problem with mobile phones as well as when a mast breaks down. There is also a lack of sharing and networks across the UK are incomplete. A customer of a certain network can travel to certain places and find no coverage at all. Mobile phone companies could share masts, but the renting and price structure around them militates against that and makes it an expensive thing to do. If something in some Bill somewhere were to tackle that, consumers who use mobile phones would have far better services in the UK than they do at present.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, and I will come on to whether the voice of the consumer is strong enough with the regulators. That is the sort of issue a regulator could consider, because not all people access services in the same way.
With that in mind—I am conscious of time—I will press on to the final question that we will set for the Bill in Committee, which concerns whether it has a clear enough framework for when things go wrong. We know that absence of enforcement gives an advantage to firms that break the rules, whether in a local community or nationally. Consumers are getting a poor deal and providers are getting away with it because there is little accountability or likelihood of prosecution. Giving consumers a stronger voice in the regulation of goods and services would enable consideration of the consequences of the different way that services are managed among different groups in society.
Again, the Bill could have led on that and tackled the problem. The concept of an ombudsman is clear in principle, but confused in practice. There are at least 17 different ombudsman services including the Financial Ombudsman Service, the local government ombudsman, the housing ombudsman, the pensions ombudsman and the legal ombudsman, as well as the parliamentary ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. In addition, there are also 14 recognised complaints handling services, including the Advertising Standards Authority, the commissioner for young people, the Information Commissioner and the schools adjudicator. However, not all ombudsmen and adjudicators are the same. Some exist through European and UK statute, such as the housing ombudsman, but others have been set up by the industries as voluntary bodies.
Let me return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has sadly left the Chamber, about the furniture industry where we see such problems at first hand. The furniture ombudsman was set up as part of the Furniture Industry Research Association and is the only profit-making ombudsman service in this country. Some sectors have one ombudsman, but others have many. Businesses can pick and choose which they sign up to, further complicating matters for consumers. The lack of clarity about what an ombudsman could do and what powers it has is a problem for all consumers, and I say to the Secretary of State that tweeting about the issue or using social media is not the way to address it. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has been diligent in raising the case of Farepak consumers, which seems exactly the point at which a stronger and clearer ombudsman system would come into play.
Stella Creasy
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am conscious of time and want to press on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I heard the hon. Lady say that she wanted to press on. May I point out to her that she has been speaking for more than 40 minutes now? She has been generous in giving way, but I would be grateful if she could conclude her remarks so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.
Stella Creasy
I promise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I, too, want to conclude my remarks.
The Bill does not deal with the European directive on alternative dispute resolution, which the Opposition will want to look at in Committee. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has said that that needs to be dealt with. There is also a need for a stronger take on the role of trading standards. The Secretary of State seems to believe that trading standards, which are desperately short of resources, can deal with many of the problems. We know that most consumer detriment happens at local level, and therefore that we need to do more to help people to take action at that level. The Secretary of State has not told the whole truth on cowboy builders. Many builders repeatedly rip people off, and yet there is little provision locally to take them on. The Opposition believe that the Bill has a role in doing something about that.
The Opposition also believe that there is a role for the Bill in dealing with the broader social impact of changes. I would flag up prepayment meters and premium phone lines, in relation to which there is a need for a broader social concern in the role a regulator can play.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. When I say that the hon. Lady needs to conclude her speech, I do not mean that she should speak faster through what she has left to say; I mean that she should finish her speech with a few sentences. I would like her to do that now. That is not an opinion, but a request, and I expect her to do it.
Stella Creasy
It is a request to which I willingly oblige.
Suffice it to say, the Opposition look forward to the debate in Committee. I hope we have set out that there are many more things we can do in the Bill. We believe that we should make the pound in our pocket truly powerful. We hope the Government join us in that ambition.
Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic case to show why real-time credit checking is so important in this industry. Does she agree that, in any other industry where money was being lent, the lenders would want to know about any other obligations that the people being lent to had. Is it not curious that this industry seems not to want to know what others are lending to their customers, and does this not reflect their irresponsible approach to their consumers?
Cathy Jamieson
My hon. Friend, who has campaigned for many years on this particular issue, makes a very good point again. It seems to me to make perfect sense for anyone who is lending money to want as much information as possible to ensure that the correct decision can be taken. Our amendment would mean that the FCA would have a duty to introduce a system for sharing credit data so that payday lenders could not continue to evade their responsible lending obligations.
Mr Tyrie
On payday loans, I only want to make two very quick points. First, we need to be very careful that EU regulation does not drive a coach and horses through anything we might try to do domestically. I also want to reinforce the point that it is extremely important not to displace what we may disapprove of in the formal sector into the informal sector of very nasty loan shark practices. This will require a great deal of supervision and care.
Mr Tyrie
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, because I promised the Chair that I will speak for only three minutes. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to make her own speech in a moment, and she has been a doughty campaigner on this subject for some time.
I want to speak briefly about part 5 of the Bill, which is the part that creates the payments regulator. This implements a recommendation the Treasury Committee made two years ago. It is worth explaining the origins of our recommendations.
The Payments Council—which is dominated by the banks and other firms involved in the payments system—decided in 2011 to abolish the cheque, without providing any explanation of how it would provide an adequate replacement. That was a profound mistake, and the Committee decided to investigate. The justification for that decision looked pretty threadbare and the abolition also carried a considerable consumer detriment both for charities and for a lot of people who use cheques. I did 20 radio and TV interviews on this subject after the report was published. I asked each of the interviewers whether they had a chequebook; 19 of them said they did and they very much wanted to keep it. I think that brings home the value of cheques. This does not affect only the elderly; quite a large group of people want to keep some kind of paper-based transaction system for the time being.
Under pressure the Payments Council did a U-turn and cheques have been retained. The Treasury Committee also looked at how such a crass decision could have been taken in the first place. We concluded that the explanation lay with the structure of the Payments Council itself. Frankly, it has been little more than a poodle of the industry, and it certainly could not reasonably claim to act on behalf of consumers. A reasonable case can be made, however, that it is a monopoly controller of a crucial banking service. We recommended that that responsibility for the payments system be brought within the ambit of regulation, and we gave an outline of how that should be achieved. Amendments 63 to 134 would implement that central recommendation of our report. It is now up to Parliament to ensure that the FCA is much more responsive to the needs of consumers and competition, on this and a good number of other issues, than was its predecessor. I warmly welcome this part of the Bill.
Sajid Javid
I have had discussions with the FCA about this. We expect that by the end of next year the process will be set up, but there are a number of issues to be dealt with before that can be confirmed with more certainty. That is the time scale that the industry is working towards.
Let me move on to some of the other issues that were raised in relation to high cost credit. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun mentioned excessive bank charges, and I agree with her concerns. The Government are concerned about default charges across the unsecured lending market, not just the payday loan market. The Government are strengthening regulation for consumer credit across the board by giving responsibility to the FCA. The FCA recently committed to consider carrying out a thematic review of market practice in relation to fees and charges, once it has full regulatory authority over consumer credit.
I will turn briefly to the timetable for introducing a cap on the total cost of payday lending, which we discussed earlier. As the shadow Minister said, 2 January 2015 is just a back-stop. Of course I would like to see it introduced sooner, as I think we all would. However, as we have discussed, it is better to have a cap that works and protects consumers, rather than one that has been forced on the regulator by an artificial time scale. It is important to listen to the FCA, the regulator that will establish the cap, so it is worth reiterating what Martin Wheatley has said:
“It is very important that we are clear with you on the practical implications of any further shortening in the timetable, the principal one being that we believe it is impossible to have as strong a cap based on a shorter deadline. To such a tight timetable we would be forced to perform less analysis on the methodology and level for any cap, and so would be forced to set the cap at a more conservative level (that is, higher) to reflect the inherent legal risks. This cannot be the intended outcome from a consumer protection standpoint.”
It would be foolish for this House to ignore the FCA’s view, as I am sure we all share the objective of having a cap that works and protects consumers.
Stella Creasy
We know that 1 million families in this country have already said that they will pay for Christmas this year with a payday loan because of the cost of living crisis they are facing. The Minister is talking about delaying the introduction of any form of cap until 2015, so there is a real question about the impact that might have next Christmas, which will be the default position of not supporting the proposed amendment. Introducing even a conservative cap before next Christmas might do something to lessen the damage that those toxic types of lending are doing to people, given that the cost of living crisis will continue for the year ahead.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. As she will have noted from the letter I just quoted from Martin Wheatley, one of the concerns about a conservative cap is that it would be open to much greater legal risk. It would serve nobody in this House if there was some kind of legal challenge to a cap and how it works if the process has not been followed properly and if some people believe that the FCA has not followed its own rules, particularly on the time for consultation. Had the hon. Lady been here at the start of the debate, she might have heard that the Competition Commission’s investigation into payday lending, which is already under a tighter timetable than it usually has—it is normally around two years, but it has agreed to make that 18 months—will report in November next year. I think that everyone would agree that it is very important that the FCA takes into account the results of that investigation.
Women and the Cost of Living
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister brushed aside the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) about the impact of the Government’s changes on women’s pockets and purses, offering instead a presumption that households share their incomes equally. Has she actually read the research into domestic violence and financial control? Does she really think that a simple transfer is made between men and women in every household in this country? Does she think that our concerns about the direct impact of Government policy on women’s purses are not well founded?
Nicky Morgan
I would never want to downplay the effects of domestic violence. Sadly, I see cases in my constituency surgery on a regular basis, as we all do. The point is, however, that that is not happening in every household. Similarly, not every household is made up of two parents or just one parent; there are all sorts of different families. That is what this Government recognise: the situation is not uniform.
Thanks to the changes that we have made, and thanks, most importantly, to the hard work of women and men across the UK, our economy is turning a corner. The UK is now on the path to prosperity. The deficit is down by a third, gross domestic product is rising, and more people—including women—are in work than ever before. The more men and women who are taking home wages at the end of the month—especially when 25 million people’s wages are being boosted by our increase in the tax-free personal allowance—the higher will be the standard of living that we can expect to see in households across the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on family incomes.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on family incomes.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of fiscal policy on family incomes.
Sajid Javid
I must say that if the hon. Lady is genuinely interested in the challenges that families face, she should recognise the causes: Labour’s recession, the deepest in our post-war history; Labour’s record budget deficit, the deepest in our post-war history; and Labour’s bank bail-outs, the largest the world has ever seen.
Stella Creasy
With working families’ incomes on average 1,500 quid down and millionaires taking tax cuts, does the Minister really think that we are all in this together?
Sajid Javid
As the hon. Lady has already heard, all millionaires will be paying a higher tax rate under this Government than they did for the whole 13 years that the Labour party was in power. She should also welcome the tax cut we provided for the lowest income families, 25 million people, with 2.7 million taken out of taxation altogether. I note that the Labour party has recently talked about reintroducing the 10p tax rate, which they abolished. Well, I have news for it: all those people are now paying a 0% tax rate on that income.
Living Standards
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
We have said of the private rented sector that we would require a new national register of landlords.
This Government are presiding over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s. We have said that we would build new affordable homes, and the IMF has said that the Government should bring forward investment in infrastructure. Perhaps we should listen to the IMF.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor now claim that their economic plan has worked after all, but two quarters of positive growth do not begin to repair the damage from three years of flatlining. Three wasted years have left permanent damage as businesses have lost vital investment opportunities, and almost 1 million young people are out of work. That is why families are suffering; that is why deficit reduction is so far off track. Yet we have a complacent Government. They have no idea of what they have put families through, no idea of the damage they are still doing, and no plan to put things right. Three years in government and still no British investment bank; three years in government and banking reform is being watered down; three years in government and one in five apprentices say they have received no training; three years in government and the number of 16 to 18-year-old apprentices is down by 13% this year; three years in government and major infrastructure projects are stalled; three years in government and life is getting tougher for ordinary families.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case about the warped priorities of this Government and the consequences and costs for households. It is little wonder that 80% of payday loans are for the basic costs she is talking about—housing, travel, rent and food. Is it not another example of this Government’s warped priorities that in three years of clear warnings they have done nothing about the legal loan sharks in our society, and is that not why we would make a difference in government?
Rachel Reeves
She has done fantastic campaigning work on that issue. Labour has said that we would cap the cost of credit, as she has called for.
A one nation Labour Government would be taking action now to secure the recovery and to build a more balanced economy that boosts the living standards not just for the few at the top but for the many. We would act on the recommendations of the IMF to support and secure the recovery by bringing forward £10 billion of infrastructure investment. We would build 400,000 affordable homes, creating more than half a million jobs and making our economy stronger for the long term. We would support house building, encourage private sector investment, and create apprenticeships. A one nation Labour Government would be confronting the scandal of youth and long-term unemployment by introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee.
Greg Clark
Where has the hon. Lady been for the past three years? We have reformed the planning system. Since the national planning policy framework was adopted, which I had something to do with, planning permissions for new homes have risen by 22%. That is the action that is required if the problems that she identifies are to be solved.
The Labour motion talks about the standard of living, but no Government in living memory have done more to scupper the standard of living of ordinary working people in this country than the last Labour Government.
Stella Creasy
The Minister wants to talk about his Government’s record, so let us talk about the last six months alone, during which the proportion of people in this country who are worried about their personal debt has risen to 50%—20 million people in this country are desperately worried about the level of personal debt that they are in. Does he accept that his low-wage economy is part of the reason why so many families in this country are lying awake at night, frightened about how they will put food on their table and make it through to the end of the week?
Co-operatives
Stella Creasy Excerpts(10 years, 10 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
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing this important debate. In his speech, he not only highlighted some of the best practice in co-operatives but made a strong argument about how many current public policy problems in this country could be addressed by taking a more co-operative approach. In particular, I thank him for mentioning co-op housing and my Co-operative Housing Tenure Bill, which I believe has huge potential to address some of the housing challenges that this country faces.
It is with great pride that I sit in Parliament as a Labour and Co-operative MP. I am fortunate to represent a constituency steeped in the co-operative tradition. The first co-operative store in my constituency was opened in Mossley in 1856, and to this day there is a Co-op store on the same site. The co-op movement was active in parts of my area well before the Labour party even existed, and my constituency, of course, is only a stone’s throw away from the co-operative movement’s spiritual home in Rochdale. It would be wrong to claim that the values championed by the co-op movement—democracy, openness, trust and social responsibility—are characteristic only of areas such as mine or south Wales, because the modern co-op movement is nationwide, but it is not mere coincidence that we started it.
I cite these things not just as an amusing historical preamble to my speech, but because it is extremely important, particularly for those of us on this side of the political divide, to remember and stay true to the political tradition that the co-operative movement represents. For many reasons, not least the success of the 1945 Labour Government in creating national institutions such as the NHS, which celebrates its 65th birthday this week, the Labour party in modern times has prioritised a statist, top-down view of politics, but we should never forget to combine that with the earlier tradition of bottom-up, grass-roots and community campaigning.
It is interesting that in recent years, through the work of the co-operative movement and through things such as community organising and living wage campaigns, we have begun to get back in touch with that tradition, which is good. We should recognise that at times, domination by the state can be as detrimental as domination by the market. The co-operative movement is a fine example of something that has always been balanced between the two.
We are obviously still in a difficult economic situation, facilitated by the failure of the Government’s plans to get things going at any level. I am of the firm belief that co-operatives are vital to the economy of this country, not just for their economic value but for their social benefits. More than 15 million people in the UK—nearly a quarter of the population—are members of a co-operative. That is no small number. It is a sign to all of us that there is more to be explored in co-operatives and the value that they can bring.
I want to discuss how co-ops can have a positive impact on our economy and the social fabric of our communities. It is timely that in a week when the Government have organised a summit with the heads of payday loan companies, this debate gives us the opportunity to showcase the value of credit unions, which offer a brilliant example of how co-operative values can have a positive effect on local economies.
More than 1 million people in the UK use credit unions. Research by Salford university on behalf of Leeds city council found that for every £1 the council invested in credit unions, there was a £10 benefit in retained income for the local economy. Manchester credit union, which serves people in my constituency, can trace part of its roots to the Hattersley area, which I represent. Today it has more than 10,000 members and lends out more than £4 million a year. In a few weeks, Cash Box, a local credit union in Hyde, will open its first high street branch, which we should celebrate.
Yet credit unions account for only a small proportion of the total consumer lending market. Given that their average annual percentage rate is 26.8%, we must ask why people are attracted to payday loan companies that get away with APRs of more than 4,000%. Something has to change. Many of us believe that payday lending in this country is out of control.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for not being able to be here at the start of this debate. My hon. Friend is making a strong case about the importance of credit unions. Does he also agree that one thing that credit unions bring to the debate about the cost of living crisis in this country is how they help members, not just by giving loans but by giving debt advice? That is precisely the value of a co-operative mindset: to think in the long term and to think about the whole person and what they need from services. That is why credit unions are so important.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree completely. We all pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tremendous campaign against payday lending. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn discussed trust and the wider benefits to a person, rather than the exploitative relationship that many of us believe payday lenders have. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is absolutely right to address the wider benefits of that approach for people and their communities.
I recognise that the Government have relaxed the rules on how credit unions can operate, allowing them to reach out to more of the community, but to echo the point made previously, I regret the Government’s refusal to accept the Co-operative party’s amendments to the Financial Services Bill, which would have helped promote mutuals and create a more competitive financial services industry. In a climate where people feel increasingly detached from the banks, credit unions based on co-operative principles help local people deal with everyday issues and make a positive impact on the local economy.
My second point involves the relatively new idea of co-operative councils and how they may be able to offer a new, innovative way of procuring local services to meet the needs of local communities in difficult financial circumstances. I read the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government report from 2012, “Mutual and Co-operative Approaches to Delivering Local Services”, particularly the evidence given by Lord Glasman, who said that giving users a stake in public services ensures that they feel that they are at the heart of local government, and that making people feel involved strengthens their relationship with their local economy.
Co-operative and mutual models help councils facilitate long-term jobs and investment and help ensure that long-term social benefit is prioritised over short-term gain. It is no coincidence that a majority of all the councils that have signed up to the co-operative council network already pay their staff a living wage, which is clearly of huge benefit to local economies.
The question that we should ask in debates such as this is how the Government can help organisations and local authorities deliver economic growth by building on best practice within the co-operative movement. One of the key conclusions of “Mutual and Co-operative Approaches to Delivering Local Services” is:
“The Government has a choice, if it wants more mutuals and co-operatives to develop: it must take action to provide support.”
Although a recent Co-ops UK report shows that the co-operative movement in this country is still growing, we would all say that the Government could do more to encourage that development. The Government talk a good game on mutuals, but in reality, many of their proposals for public services are joint venture spin-offs with private partners. Those may have merit, but they should not use the language and clothes of the co-operative movement unless that is truly what they are. The example often given is the behavioural unit in the Cabinet Office known as the nudge unit. It is often cited as a flagship Government mutual, but most of us, as well as most people in Co-ops UK and the Co-operative party, would barely consider it a mutual at all.
As we are in the middle of co-operatives fortnight, this debate is an excellent opportunity to promote the benefits of co-ops. I believe that they have a part to play in the economy of every society, from credit unions that lend to families to the running of core services and bigger ideas such as co-operative housing, which has been mentioned. The positive economic and social impact of co-ops should be celebrated, particularly after the financial crisis, when people are seeking to ensure that we never again get ourselves into the situation that we got into in 2008. I believe that all Members should do whatever they can to advance and promote the cause of co-operatives.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of Exchequer receipts from co-operatives, not only through business rates and other forms of taxation paid by those businesses, but also because co-operatives in the UK employ so many people who are economically active and who contribute to tax returns. That is one of the benefits of co-operatives, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend brought it up.
As for local co-operatives, the secretary-general of Co-operatives UK describes the effect of keeping so much money in the local economy, and generating additional value there, with the term “sticky money”. Co-operative money is sticky money: I think it is a good term. He says:
“It stays local, because co-operatives employ local people, are owned by local people and try to source from local firms that do the same. Every pound spent in a co-operative shop is a real boost to the local economy.”
Co-operatives are known as trusted local businesses. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has told the Chamber about his experience of that. I share that experience of growing up, and the values that can be seen in co-operatives. Today, the value that they offer to communities is incredibly important.
In my community, the main co-operative is the Midlands Co-operative. It is one of the largest independent retail co-operative societies in the UK. It employs 7,000 staff, is member-owned and has a board of directors, one of whom—I should declare an interest—is my father. It had gross sales of £670 million and a profit of £24.3 million in 2012-13. It operates across a wide range of sectors—food, funeral services, crematoriums, transport—and has more than 300 trading outlets in 12 counties. I want to highlight its achievements.
The Midlands Co-operative Society was recognised as co-operative of the year, which I am sure you welcome, Mr Hollobone, as you must shop, as I do, in a Midlands Co-op in your constituency. It has the highest trading profit of all independent co-operatives, and it rewarded its members with a £4.3 million payout; it created 300 additional jobs in its trading area; it invested more than £0.5 million to help its employees develop their skills; it funded local community projects to the tune of £1.5 million; and it has refurbished many of its outlets to make them energy-efficient, reducing energy consumption.
All the Midlands Co-op stores have a locally sourced range—I have already referred to the initiative to take primary school children to the co-operative’s working farms—and the supply chain benefit of sourcing locally from firms that are less than 50 miles away is incredibly important. In my area, and yours, Mr Hollobone, the supply chain benefit is known as a “Taste of Northamptonshire”. The Midlands Co-op helps vital community initiatives, so I was pleased to support the Corby women’s choir recently at a great local event, and I welcome the news that the co-operative is backing grass-roots football in Thrapston in east Northamptonshire. The benefits are enormous.
I want to say a few words in support of the comments made by my hon. Friends about co-operative housing. I was pleased to hear David Rodgers mentioned in his role in the International Co-operative Alliance, but I have known him for some years as the former chief executive of the Co-operative Development Society, which I think would lay claim to being the largest co-operative housing organisation in Britain—we can have that debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) another time—not only for owning many thousands of units of housing directly, but for supporting co-operative housing organisations throughout the UK. The CDS has been a pioneer in introducing new models of intermediate market housing—desperately needed in this country—by looking at examples in north America, especially Vermont, where co-operative housing makes a huge contribution to the housing supply and in particular to intermediate market housing, but also in northern Europe. In cities such as Oslo in Norway, more than half the housing in the city is co-operative housing.
We need to look at the real potential offered by co-operative housing models in this country. In particular, we could link co-operative and mutual models with community land trusts—for rural as well as urban areas—to engage communities in bringing forward significant new developments. Community land trusts offer real potential to capture land values—for example, exception sites can be made community land trusts—and that is something we ought to look at. Using the mutual models, benefits such as corporate mortgages and so on can reduce the cost to people of purchasing their own home. In particular, under flexible models of share ownership, people can buy equity shares in the overall housing trust, which they take on with an element of housing equity growth, if that happens over the time that they are in the housing. That is much better and more flexible for people than traditional ways of getting a foot on the housing ladder or a stake in the housing market.
The community mutual model, as developed in particular by organisations such as Mutuo, has been taken up in Wales. There are community mutuals in Rhondda, in Torfaen and elsewhere in Wales, but I want to see more in England. I also want to see more community gateway models in England, such as those developed by the Confederation of Co-operative Housing; community gateway housing mutuals exist in Preston, Watford, Lewisham and Braintree. On hybrid mutual schemes, Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, which has 14,000 units—I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale says that it is an incredibly large and important co-operative—is using an innovative new membership-based model of housing provision.
Those are real opportunities, but I hope that the Government will look at some of the legislative opportunities that might be available in the next few years, including the important Bill to support co-operative housing introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), to better support the development of co-operative models in the UK economy. Co-operatives can provide enormous benefit and could prove to be as strong in this century as they were in the last.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
A last-minute entry from Stella Creasy—I thought you would not be able to resist as soon as payday loans were mentioned.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for your kindness in letting me speak in the debate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing a debate that is incredibly important to us all in the co-op movement. I want to make a plea for the Minister to understand why it is so important for us in the co-op movement—those of us who have worked in co-operatives—to start from the mindset of co-operativism, rather than models.
It seems that the debate requires us to put on record the co-operative history of our constituencies. I am afraid that Walthamstow cannot—unusually—claim to be first in this matter. We can trace our co-op history back to 1840, and the former national offices of the co-operative movement are in Walthamstow—we have a beehive on Hoe street to prove it.
Walthamstow has a strong co-operative concern because we recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) was setting out: the powerful case, especially in recent economic times, for co-operative values and how they work. Why has the co-op economy grown by nearly 20% in the past five or six years compared with what we have seen in our national economy? In Walthamstow, we would argue that it is precisely because of the mindset that co-operativism brings with it—the idea that we work for a broader set of values, and that what we do together, through democratic participation, can reap rewards well beyond mere financial profits. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the founder of the Conservative co-op movement, is not present in the Chamber, because we are concerned that it has a preference for considering the technicalities of how people work together, rather than why they work together.
I liked the phrase “sticky money” that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby used. A fantastic study from Lincoln shows that co-operatives bring about a multiplier effect that is around six times that of ordinary organisations in a community, so they bring resources into an area. The co-op mindset brings unparalleled creativity to thinking, and I urge the Minister to look at the work of some of our co-op councils. On a recent visit to Oldham, I was particularly struck by the council’s work on debt and financial difficulties. The co-op council negotiated a 30% discount on bus passes for those who joined the credit union. The scheme has been a fantastic success: the number of people joining the credit union has increased massively, thus increasing the amount of money available to lend, while the scheme has been cost-neutral for the bus company and has helped to get the city moving, so it is win, win for everyone. Such creative thinking takes place when our bottom line is the people we serve, meaning that we see people as part of the co-op, rather than just customers. The danger of looking only at employee co-ops—the John Lewis model—is that we miss out on the vital impact of working with the users of our services.
I am also struck by the work that is being done in Lambeth. My community in Walthamstow has a big problem with gangs, and the work that Lambeth is doing on youth services and co-ops is fantastic, as is the response from the local community, so I encourage the Minister to look at that. I also encourage him to go to see the energy co-op in Brixton. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was talking about such co-ops earlier, as well as about the work of Supporters Direct and especially the “Show Wonga the Red Card” campaign. Whether on housing, social care or energy, co-op solutions are bringing a new creativity to all our public services that is benefiting users and reducing costs.
We know that the market alone cannot provide, which is the problem that we have with payday lenders. As you suggested, Mr Hollobone, I cannot go through the debate without talking about that problem, because the market is failing consumers. Co-op solutions are providing the answers in communities such as Walthamstow, where we have 18 of those lenders on our high street alone. I encourage the Minister to think again about his opposition to a cap on the cost of credit, because only when the cost of credit is capped and we examine how to lend to people responsibly, as social finance models and credit unions do, will a difference be made.
We need co-operative thinking not only in the credit union movement and on payday lending—we need the cap and an expansion in affordable credit—but in our social care. The Minister should look at Nottingham Circle’s adult social care or at co-operative schools. When we work together as a society, and as the co-op movement is ingrained in us from the grass roots up, we deliver the kind of future in which everyone can prosper. When we do not work in such ways, we can learn a lesson from New Harmony, which was the fantastic co-op that was set up by Robert Owen in America, but that fell apart after 25 years because although it had the co-operative model, it did not have the co-op mindset.
The difference that co-op members and co-op thinking bring is an understanding of not just how people work together, but why they work together and in whose interest, so that is what I challenge the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and the Government to learn from this debate. I thank everyone who has taken part in it, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn for securing it. I look forward to many more co-operative debates in the House.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) both on securing this very important debate and on putting forward his case so eloquently. He entered Parliament in May 2010 and he has already made an outstanding mark. I would like to respond to the issues raised by hon. Members, and I will try my best to capture them all, including some of the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).
As many hon. Members will be aware, the Government’s approach to mutuals was set out in the coalition agreement, where we committed to “promote mutuals” and “foster diversity” in the UK economy. That commitment, made in the Government’s founding document, underscores the importance that we attach to the sector. I would like to talk this afternoon about the contribution that the co-operative and mutual sectors make to the economy, and, I hope, to reassure all hon. Members of our determination to support them in their efforts.
First, however, I turn to the Co-operative Group itself, as raised by the hon. Member for Islwyn and other hon. Members. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Co-op is at the forefront of the mutuals sector, with more than 4,800 retail trading outlets and an annual turnover of more than £13 billion. Clearly, the Co-operative bank is an important part of the Co-operative Group. I was pleased to see last month that the group has committed to strengthening the bank’s position, including through a commitment to inject capital. It would not be appropriate for me to say more, other than that the group is rightly taking action and strengthening its banking arm through that recapitalisation.
I turn to the co-operative sector as a whole. The Government have made it clear that the co-operative sector is of great importance to the UK economy. That case was made especially well by the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). In fact, co-operatives are ingrained in our culture. As we have heard, the first recorded co-op in the world was set up in Scotland in 1761. Building on those foundations, the birth of the modern co-operative movement can be credited to the Rochdale pioneers, no less, in the mid-19th century, as we heard so well from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). He correctly said that I am a Rochdale boy, and it is something that fills me with great pride. There are people in this world who do not know where Rochdale is—however shocking that sounds—but when they are told that it is the home of the co-operative movement, they immediately recognise the town’s importance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
From those humble beginnings, a thriving co-operative sector has blossomed. The UK now has more than 6,000 independent co-ops, and there is a co-op in every single postcode area. Those organisations provide valuable services across a wide variety of industries, including agriculture, finance and energy production. However, we should also remember that although co-operatives focus on serving their members, they are also businesses. The co-op sector in the UK had an overall turnover of well over £36 billion in 2012, which is why, in line with the Government’s commitment to promote mutuals, we have taken steps to support the sector and to enable it to thrive further.
Last January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the co-operatives consolidation Bill, which will be introduced to Parliament in December this year. Although the Bill will not contain any new legislation, it will put all co-op legislation in one place, reducing complexity and making it easier for new co-operatives to be set up. I know that that will be welcomed by the co-operative movement.
In addition, we will consult very shortly on a further package of measures to support the co-op sector, including making insolvency procedures available to co-ops, so that a troubled co-op has more chance of being rescued. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) rightly raised the issue of football supporters’ trusts. As he will know, the Football Association is concerned about the inability of those trusts to go into administration. The changes that we propose in the consultation will hopefully help to satisfy that requirement, and help that sector of mutuals—football supporters’ trusts and others—to thrive further. We will also consult on raising the amount of withdrawable share capital that an individual member can invest in one society, so that co-ops can more easily raise capital from their members.
A very important subsection of co-ops, as we heard, is the credit union sector, which provides a mutually owned option for customers looking to save, take out loans, or, in some cases, to get current accounts and even mortgages. We have heard many Members today speak about the sector eloquently, including the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Islwyn, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
We have taken a number of specific measures to support the sector. Most visibly, the Department for Work and Pensions co-ordinated a recent feasibility study to examine the future of credit unions. It was announced only last week that the Government will take forward the study’s findings. That includes the Department for Work and Pensions making a further investment of up to £38 million over the next three years in credit unions, with the aim of supporting the credit union sector to provide sustainable financial services for up to 1 million additional people.
The feasibility study also proposed raising the maximum interest rate that a credit union can charge to 3% a month. The Government have announced that we will take that proposal forward, and it will apply from April 2014. That will enable credit unions to break even on the low-value, short-term loans that are the most expensive to issue, and to become more stable over the long term. That will be an alternative, as we have heard from some hon. Members today, to other avenues for borrowing for short-term loans, such as payday loans.
Stella Creasy
It is fantastic to hear the Minister supporting credit unions doing short-term lending. If he recognises that credit unions can do short-term lending at capped rates, why does he not think that payday lenders could lend at capped rates and introduce a cap on the cost of credit?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that we have rightly given the power to an independent regulator to set capped rates, if it thinks that is appropriate in future. That is the correct way to deal with the issue.
In the interests of time, I must plough on. If we are to consider the wider mutuals sector, we should also consider building societies, which remain another key focus for the Government. We set out our approach to applying the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking on building societies in “The future of building societies” consultation paper. The consultation closed last year, and we are now considering how best to treat building societies in line with our aims. We will set out our proposed approach in due course.
Several other questions were asked, and before I conclude, I will try to answer some of them as best I can. A number of hon. Members raised the issue of co-ops in the energy sector. The Department of Energy and Climate Change published a call for evidence on community energy in June 2013, and it will publish a community energy strategy for autumn 2013. That highlights the Government’s commitment to supporting community energy projects.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of housing. I agree that the co-operative sector has an important role to play in housing, particularly because, between 1997 and 2010, we saw a decline in social housing in our country of more than 421,000 units. I think that the co-operative sector can make a contribution to turning that around, and it will benefit from Government funds that have already been made available, in particular, for affordable housing.
The hon. Member for Islwyn raised the issue of Northern Rock. We believe that the sale was in the best interests of the taxpayer, securing the long-term future of Northern Rock plc and increasing competition in the banking sector. The decision to proceed with the sale was based on the advice that the Government received from United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd and independent advisers, having considered all bids and all other potential options.
Finally, in the interests of time, I will just address one more issue about the use of the name “co-op”, which was a good point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. That is something, as he rightly identified, that is being looked at by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I am aware that very strong representations have been made to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, not least by Ed Mayo of Co-operatives UK. The Business Secretary has committed to looking into the matter further and to making an announcement shortly.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s support for the co-operative sector, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate, especially the hon. Member for Islwyn for making his case so well.