Leaseholders’ Rights (Insurance)

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency is to the south-east of mine. I am sure he knows Walthamstow and will be concerned that it is considered such a risk by Freehold Managers. We simply do not know how the company reached this figure of a 40% increase in insurance because Walthamstow might be a place of terrorism. We do not know, for example, whether a gas attack in which people needed to be decontaminated, as opposed to an explosion, would be covered by the policy. We simply have no details.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly important speech. The issue does not affect only her constituency, but constituencies throughout the country. The defence is that there is a right to manage and therefore, in theory, residents are protected and getting value for money, but because of the costs and the inability to get accurate information from decision makers, and the use of section 106 agreements as an excuse, it is almost impossible for people to exercise the right to manage. Residents are being ripped off by organisations such as Countrywide. It is not acceptable.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my next point. In chasing the company for details for the past four years so that my residents might fairly exercise their rights at the leasehold valuation tribunal, we have been stonewalled at every opportunity and told that the information is commercially sensitive, even though the charges are not part of the original leases.

Section 106 agreements were not around when the Warner flats were built in the Victorian era, but the leasehold agreements were. The company claims that the information is commercially sensitive, and when we have gone to the insurance company, which is directly billing my constituents, it too has said that its client is the freeholder. It is a Kafkaesque nightmare for my constituents, who are trying to resolve why they are being charged an extra 40% on their insurance. They cannot go to a leasehold valuation tribunal to ask whether it is a fair charge and what assessment has been made.

I am sure my colleagues could share similar horror stories about other charges. Freehold Managers is seeking to charge residents of mine up to £10,000 to consent to a loft conversion—not to do the loft conversion, but simply to give consent. It continues to push the boundaries about what is an acceptable service charge and an acceptable fee. It is resolute in the idea that it should not share any accountability. But that is not the view of others in the insurance industry, let alone in the freehold management industry.

Although the Association of British Insurers argues for a terrorism surcharge, it also argues that leaseholders should be given clear and timely information each year about their insurance contracts and that that should take place before the contract is agreed. It says that residents should have details about what shopping around the management company has done to make sure the premium is competitive, and whether there are any significant exclusions. As I said, are we protected in Walthamstow against explosions, but not decontamination fees? The ABI says that the insurance broker should be clear about whether there are any fees involved in the process. Those are all questions that Freehold Managers has simply refused to answer, so the ability of my constituents to seek redress at a leasehold valuation tribunal is hampered as a result. Given the fees involved in going to a leasehold valuation tribunal, it is not fair to expect people to seek such redress without the information to make their case.

I have come here today as a constituency MP but with my other hat on, as a shadow Minister, I have tried to make progress on this matter in the Consumer Rights Bill, to make it clear that a consumer has the right to the details of a policy, product or service that they have directly paid for. Let me stress again: residents are getting direct bills from the insurance company on behalf of a freehold management company. Sadly, the Minister’s colleagues in the Commons rejected the proposals, arguing that it was already explicit that people should be able to access such information. The fact that there are colleagues from other parts of the country—indeed, from other parties—who are saying, “No, we’re seeing the same sorts of problems”, shows that that is simply not the case.

I have a number of questions for the Minister and I want to give him time to answer them, and to answer any questions he may have, because it must seem such a surreal situation to be faced with. First and foremost, does he think it fair that residential properties are being charged a terrorism surcharge on their insurance? If so, what assessment has he made of the likelihood of terrorist incidents across residential areas in this country? My local police or other emergency services are certainly not aware of the likelihood of such an incident.

Secondly, does the Minister think that my constituents have a right to exercise their consumer rights in this instance and know the details of the policy that they are being asked to pay for? If so, where would he see them being able to exercise those rights? Thirdly, will the Minister raise this issue with a leasehold valuation tribunal? Given the persistent failure of the freeholder I have mentioned to provide this information, which would enable my constituents to have their day at the tribunal to see whether the charge being imposed on them is fair and competitive, what action can he take to assist my constituents—and, I suspect, the thousands of other people across the country who are also dealing with recalcitrant freehold management companies?

Finally, can the Minister tell us what action the Government will take to reform leasehold law? I ask that because this issue is clearly not only about insurance charges but about these other charges, and about companies such as Freehold Managers, which see residents such as my constituents in Walthamstow as a cash point. It tries to squeeze them consistently, even threatening them with legal action when they so much as query these charges, challenging them about their right to buy the freehold and imposing excessive charges for simple things such as queries about loft conversions or indeed leasehold extensions. Surely it is time to stop the misery of what is mystery buying, as opposed to mystery selling.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I shall speak to amendments 78, 137 and 148, which deal with the role of the Office of Fair Trading. Before I do, I want to place on record my gratitude to Members in the other place who, along with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) have been so supportive of the sharkstoppers campaign. I mention Lord Mitchell, Lord Kennedy, the Right Reverend Welby—I think that is the appropriate term; apologies if it is not—Baroness Howe and Baroness Grey-Thompson. They have all been fantastic in championing a measure that I know has widespread support across the country.

I also put on record my gratitude to many organisations that have been helping make the case for action on high-cost credit, whether it be R3, the insolvency practitioners, the co-operative movement and co-operative party, Unite, Community and the thousands of concerned citizens who been involved in part of the campaign. I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford for her kind words and for using the term “tirelessly” rather than “tiresome”, which is how some people might have interpreted the doggedness with which we have persisted in campaigning on this issue. In that sense, this amendment and the damascene conversion of the Government to the need to act on the cost of credit is very welcome. Throughout this campaign, we have all said that when the Government accepted that we were right all along, we would be grateful and would take it within the spirit of cross-party agreement that something needs to be done about these companies and about the impact of debt on our constituents.

With that in mind and in genuine appreciation of the fact that this moment has happened, I now want to press the Minister, as have many others, about the nature of the amendment and what will happen in the next year. Many of us are concerned that there is still a window of opportunity driven both by the delay in the implementation of these powers for the Financial Conduct Authority until April 2014 and by the continuing pressures that many in our constituencies will face, which might mean a bonzer Christmas for many of the legal loan sharks.

We started to campaign on this issue because we could see that toxic mix in Britain of a crisis in the cost of living, of families struggling, having lost jobs or facing wage freezes in Britain and, indeed, of the lax regulation in the UK of the cost of credit. We know that those pressures have got worse, not better, for British families over the last couple of years, so we know that one in three of those families in Britain have suffered a pay freeze over the last 12 months at the same time as they have seen the cost of basics rise and continue to rise. We know that many consumers have borrowed about £2,000 on top of their secured debts—their mortgages—to try to make ends meet in the last year, but only a quarter of them have managed to pay that money back.

The concern I bring to the House tonight is that when we look ahead to 2013, many of those pressures will not just increase, but explode over the course of the next year. The consequences for many, particularly those in the poorest communities, will be severe. We know that the pressures on the cost of living are not evenly distributed in British society. We know that the poorest 10% spend up to a quarter of their incomes on basics such as housing, fuel and energy, and we know that the prices of those commodities will become higher, not lower, in the coming year. Today we heard from E.ON—the last of the big six companies to announce it—about the increase in the cost of energy that consumers will face in the new year. The companies’ average increase of between 6% and 11% means that the average annual household energy bill will reach an all-time high of £1,300 next year.

I started to campaign on this issue because I could see the impact of debt on my community in Walthamstow, in north-east London. It gives me no pleasure to say that over the past 18 months many Members on both sides of the House, representing a range of communities, have approached me to discuss cost-of living issues, but I also know that London is a harbinger of the pressures that are to come. I know, because I have seen research-based predictions that London rents will increase by 26% over the next five years, that unless we do something about the cost of credit—unless we do something to help those who are struggling with the everyday cost of living—we shall face a society in which debt is just a way of life, with all the consequences that that will have for people.

However, this is not just about the cost of housing or, indeed, the cost of energy. It is also about the everyday cost of getting to work, which is having a great impact in my local community. I have talked to people in Walthamstow who have managed to secure apprenticeships but are forced to travel around London because there are so few apprenticeships in my area. A travelcard covering zones 1 to 3 costs £35 a week. Only people who are able to live at home can afford to take the opportunity to become an apprentice earning £100 a week, and we now learn that rail fares are to rise next year.

Those are pressures on the working poor in our community, but so are changes in the benefits system. Given that there is no spare supply of housing, it does not take a genius to recognise that the 1,000 families in my community who have been told that their housing benefit will be capped in April will have to borrow to make ends meet and keep a roof over their heads. The pressures that the legal loan sharks have decided to increase are the pressures that the amendment seeks to address.

It is clear that these companies are stubbornly resisting what are now widespread concerns about them and the profits they are making. Last year the industry was worth £1.7 billion in the UK; it is predicted that next year one company alone, Wonga, will be worth £1 billion, and it is just one of more than 200 companies that are now operating here. Moreover, the companies are clearly targeting young people, including students, and they have begun to change the terms of their loans. We became aware this week that Wonga is now offering what are supposed to be short-term loans on a 60-day basis. As the Office of Fair Trading has pointed out, the companies are abusing even the most basic consumer protections in the industry. That is why we need the amendment as a starting point, but it is also why we need to look at what else the OFT can do in the year ahead.

If we allow the pressures on consumers and their cost of living to continue and do nothing to curb the legal loan sharks now, we shall see another year in which millions of people are pushed into debt by them. We already know that a third of payday loan users take out loans that they know they cannot repay, and that 50% of people who have taken out loans have missed a payment. Given the additional pressure that those people will face next year, it will be a disaster for Britain if we do not act, and that means that we should think about what the OFT itself can do. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight whether he will support measures enabling action to be taken now.

We know that the OFT will present new proposals in the new year, and that will present an opportunity for change that could set the tone for the new Financial Conduct Authority. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—who is not in the Chamber now—that there should be regular meetings with the FCA to consider the industry now, but let us use the OFT to put down those markers.

First, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), we must pin down the question of irresponsibility in lending. What is an irresponsible rate at which to lend to people? The irresponsible lending guidance should be redrafted to make clear precisely what the cap should be and precisely what constitutes consumer detriment, in terms of both duration and the amount lent and including the total cost of a loan. Secondly, it should be made clear that it is irresponsible for lenders not to use a real-time credit register and ensure that every loan is recorded.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is delivering a categorical and passionate speech about a very important subject, and she has just made one of the most important points that can be made about that subject. Does she agree that the sharing of credit information in the UK car industry has, to an extent, transformed what was a very murky market, and that lessons can be learned from that?

[Stella Creasy]

I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done in raising issues about debt and credit, and about the way in which companies such as this operate. We know that many of them use a get-out clause, arguing that they could not possibly have known that someone had eight or nine loans at the same time. That is partly because there is no register specifying rates of interest and the number of loans that people are taking out. The OFT should make it clear that that constitutes irresponsible lending, and that loans should be made on a real-time basis. It is no good for supposedly short-term credit to be provided on a monthly basis. I also agree with all those who have expressed concern about continuous payment authorities. I hope that, in the new year, the OFT will make it clear that we must end both the fraud and the debt that they cause.

Financial Services Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

Borrowing has always been a part of the British way of life and part of our debates in the House as long as I have been an MP, but as we argue how best to tackle the nation’s debt, we forget at our peril the need to help our constituents to manage their debts. As the Minister pointed out, amendment 40 is our third attempt to help our constituents to manage their debts and to give them the kind of protections from such toxic credit that others around the world take for granted.

I hope I can convince the Minister that this is not a political whim, but a matter of deep importance to many who are struggling with such companies, not just in my constituency, but in constituencies across the country. If he is not convinced, I urge him to come to one of my surgeries, or to come with me down my high street, which now has 16 such companies, to see the problem and understand the urgency of action. I am sure the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) have the same problems in their constituencies. The amendment is about urgent action. Too many in our communities cannot afford to wait for the outcome of research in the summer, let alone for future legislation at some unknown point.

Let me start by finding common ground. I welcome the development of the Financial Conduct Authority and its role in managing consumer credit, and the statement that it will be more willing to intervene to address problems with financial products. The question we must address today—it is what the amendment speaks to—is whether the new authority will have the teeth to deal with the problems our constituents face and act in their interests. The amendment is designed to end any uncertainty on that by giving explicit authority to the FCA to act on one aspect of our consumer market that many hon. Members are concerned about. I want to put on record my thanks to those on both sides of the House who have co-signed the amendment. That speaks to the disquiet that many have that no alternatives have been put forward.

We know why there are problems, but it is worth repeating the reasons. As the costs of food, energy and transport soar and as unemployment continues to bite family households, and as wages freeze, British families are struggling and borrowing to manage their daily needs. Aviva’s work shows that UK families owe on average £10,500, which represents nearly half the average annual household income of £23,000. That level of debt will only increase, because there is no end in sight to the financial pressures people face. One in six of our nation is now a “zombie debtor”, which means a person who is able only to service the interest on their debt and not reduce it, and a third of us have no savings at all.

Since the start of the recession, mainstream lenders such as high street banks have been much less willing to lend money, but the truth is that for many, banks are making things worse, not better. Average overdraft fees in this country have simply been reduced from £25 to £12 a day, which is still a huge sum for people who have no money. Credit card rates have soared by 2% recently, taking the average interest rate to its highest level in 13 years, despite the Bank of England base rate remaining at 0.5% for 25 months. It is little wonder that many people are turning to the high-cost credit market to make ends meet.

Last year, the payday loan sector in this country was worth £1.7 billion, a fivefold increase in a year. Research by R3 tells us that nearly 4 million people will take out a payday loan in the coming months alone. The annual percentage rate—it is a misleading term, but it is still worth looking at—can begin at 444% and escalate to 16,500% or more. Home credit lenders, about which the hon. Member for North Swindon has warned us, can charge £82 in interest and collection charges for every £100 loaned.

It is little wonder that Payplan, a debt charity, is seeing a deluge of people in financial difficulty as a result of the payday loan market. It says that nearly half its clients had six or more payday loans in the last year alone. More than half owe more than £500 to those companies and, crucially, 61% had more than one loan at a time. Eighty-six per cent. of Payplan’s clients used their loans for basics such as food, transport and the everyday costs of living, not luxuries.

Such lenders are exploding across our towns and cities. Dollar Financial underpins Money Shop. Money Shop had just one store in 1992; it now has 450 shops across the UK. There are two in my high street in Walthamstow. Meanwhile, our friends at Wonga have secured £73 million from the Wellcome Trust to expand their operations; the Provident Financial share price has risen by 16% since the comprehensive spending review; and BrightHouse, which provides hire purchase agreements at hugely extortionate rates, has announced plans to nearly treble the number of stores it operates in our country.

The FCA has many toxic practices in the market to address. As the high-cost credit industry admits, a quarter of home credit users and a quarter of payday users have no other form of credit. As consumers, therefore, they do not have the power to shop around for more affordable forms of credit. That many of those firms do not do credit checks means that customers who borrow regularly from them cannot build up a track record to show to other lenders to prove that they are credit worthy so that they can borrow at more acceptable prices.

High-cost credit companies have high fixed costs, so they make their money by repeat lending, meaning that their entire business strategy is geared towards repeat borrowing and the “rolling over” of loans, about which many hon. Members are concerned. Thirty-two per cent. of payday loans are refinanced—the average is twice—and 15% of doorstep loans are refinanced before the end of their term. All hon. Members know what “rolling over” means: it means that interest can be charged on interest accrued as well as the initial amount loaned.

Such companies also engage in aggressive marketing campaigns to encourage that repeat borrowing, persistently offering customers the opportunity to extend their loans and take out new ones. There is strong anecdotal evidence that many of those companies lend consumers more money than they can afford to pay back in a month to ensure that they have to roll over their loan.

Above all, the rates charged by high-cost credit companies often do not reflect any economic rate, meaning one that reflects competition in the market or the cost of lending. That is why rates vary so substantially, from 4,500% with Wonga to a mere 2,500% with Uncle Buck, 1,700% with Kwik Cash or 1,200% with PaydayUK. There is simply a lack of competition in the market to drive the price down in the way Ministers expect.

[Justin Tomlinson]

There is a lot of competition, but because people cannot understand APRs, it is irrelevant. If repayments were displayed in cash terms, competition would kick in and help consumers.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman slightly pre-empts me. I was about to say that the doorstep market, 67% of which is owned by Provident Financial, is not competitive. Nevertheless, his point about APRs being difficult to understand is well understood.

The amendment is not a panacea. We need total cost caps on credit charges so that consumers have an explicit amount beyond which the cost of any loan will never go—interest rates, administration charges and late repayment fees included. I also agree strongly with the hon. Member for North Swindon about financial education and investment in debt advocacy services to give consumers help to negotiate with creditors and the support needed to make good decisions.

We also need an expansion in alternative sources of affordable credit through credit unions and social finance. The idea that the market will somehow reduce prices where there is disparity between the consumer and supplier belongs in the textbooks, not real life. We also need a proactive regulator to ensure effective competition and protection against consumer detriments. The amendment would address those problems and provide the opportunity, presented by the FCA, to take action as quickly as possible and to prevent the problems in our communities created by these loans from becoming worse.

I agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who said about replacing the FSA:

“The creation of the FCA is an opportunity to create something much better. If we are not careful, the FCA will become the poor relation among the new institutions. But it is the one that will matter most to millions of consumers.”

However, for the FCA to be that better institution, its power to act on toxic financial products needs to be made clear. The financial services practitioner panel stated:

“We acknowledge that it will be useful for the FCA to have tighter powers to control any product that can and does do harm.”

The amendment is in that spirit. It would give explicit powers to the FCA to cap, where it sees appropriate, the charges firms can apply.

I understand that the Government have been briefing people that those powers are not needed because the FCA already has product intervention powers. The Minister seems to think that that could happen, but he must address two questions: first, can it intervene; and, secondly, are its powers of deterrence or sanction appropriate to the toxicity we all want to prevent? Clearly, there are good grounds to fear that the first is not the case. In his speech today and in the document setting out the FCA’s powers, there are somersaults and loops worthy of the Olympics gymnastics team. The document states:

“The government has said that the FCA will not be an economic regulator in the sense of prescribing returns for financial products or services. The FCA will, however, be interested in prices because prices and margins can be key indicators of whether a market is competitive. Where its powers allow, the FCA will take into consideration more positively the cost of products or services in making judgements about whether consumers are being fairly treated. Where competition is impaired, price intervention by the FCA may be one of a number of tools necessary to protect consumers.”

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is not in his place, but that is part of the Government’s thinking.

The problem, however, is that the Government’s thinking is fuzzy. Lawyers in this area have highlighted the lack of clarity about whether the FCA is intended to be a price regulator and about whether the legislation proposes such a thing. John Odgers, the lawyer for Which?, highlighted that point in his written evidence to the Treasury Committee:

“It seems to me to be desirable that a power of price intervention should be spelled out, if it is intended. Financial services regulators have not in this jurisdiction previously exercised that type of power, and might in future be loth to do so without a specific statutory authority, as the use of such a power would be particularly likely to attract a challenge.”

The Minister should talk to the OFT. It is particularly well placed to tell the FCA about the problems that the fear of legal scrutiny places on consumer credit regulation. As it admitted, that fear has defined its work in this field and its lack of action against these firms. It has feared the cost to the public purse of unsuccessful legal actions. In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on 5 September last year, the chair of the OFT stated that

“there are companies now pursuing particular practices that 10 or 15 years ago perhaps would not have employed the most expensive lawyers and taken every point under the sun. Now, however, that is happening with an increasing number of cases where you might have otherwise expected the party to throw in the towel after the first round. They do not do that, and therefore we have to take very careful assessments. We have a particular case at the moment that I have in mind where, much to my surprise, the parties have involved the most expensive City lawyers, and we know perfectly well that we are at substantial risks on costs if we lose.”

It is little wonder that Google has a stronger track record on taking action against such adverts and firms than the OFT, which, in the past eight years, has managed to take action against one brokerage firm only.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not acceptable for banks to do what he just described? What does he make of the evidence suggesting that one of the challenges in this market is the fact that a quarter of their customers cannot borrow from banks, so even if they wished to use unauthorised overdrafts, they could not actually do so and the only source of credit available to them are predatory lenders such as Wonga?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Absolutely, and that highlights my first point about using credit reference checks. These people should not be getting money from high-cost lenders. Many of the more reputable high-cost lenders will not lend to them, but many of them do and prey on these people—that is particularly true of the doorstep lenders. We have to try to ensure that more people have access to the affordable banking arrangements—the credit union arrangements—but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that the banks always get things right because, as in the example I just gave, they can prove a lot more expensive—

[Stella Creasy]

indicated dissent.

[Justin Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady may shake her head, but my interest lies in ensuring that people get the clearest information and the cheapest possible price. I will not defend any organisation that is going to exploit the most vulnerable people.

Unsurprisingly, the final item on my tick-list is the need for financial education. I chair the all-party group on financial education for young people, and I thank the 224 Members who are now signed up to the group. People do not understand APR and, as I have argued, it needs to be removed and replaced by a transparent approach. In addition, we need consumers to be able to understand the implications of what they are signing up for, its true cost, how to source alternatives and the best way to address the situation if they get into difficulties.

I am conscious of the time so I will conclude. We are all agreed that action is needed—nobody, from either side of the House, disputes that. I welcome the consumer credit review, but we must not fall into the trap of a quick fix to chase political headlines which simply makes matters worse. We need a measured and wide-ranging response that puts the vulnerable consumer first. Let us not chase a fix that makes things a hell of a lot worse for the most vulnerable people.

Youth Service

Debate between Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

I am glad to see the Minister shaking his head. Those two things cannot be comparable. We in the youth sector know that they are apples and pears. The national citizen service, which is interesting, should in no way be regarded as a compensation for the ability to integrate services and work with young people in their communities in the long term. In areas such as Walthamstow, it is important for people on the ground to build up trusting relationships over time with young people to help them make the right choices in their life. It is critical that we understand the need to intervene differently in respect of various age groups and children in differing circumstances. Youth services in local areas have been able to develop ways of working around young people, rather than around the service that is delivered. I accept that that differs in various places. There are issues about how youth services are delivered, but we Opposition Members are concerned that the cuts that are coming through now will hamper youth services’ ability to be more flexible in working with young people in different ways and producing the interventions that people need to get the outcomes we all want.

Secondly, the consequences of the public sector cuts, nationally and locally, are already clear. I urge the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) to look again at the impact of the cuts on the national and local youth sector, particularly the voluntary youth sector. We recognise the interconnectedness of the voluntary youth sector and local youth services; that is the challenge for us. The National Council for Voluntary Youth Services has said that already this year youth sector organisations have lost 20% of their budget, and that 80% of the programmes that are closing are those working with people who are not in education, employment or training—the very group we are especially concerned about. That is already happening as a result of the in-year cuts.

There is understanding about the relationship between the voluntary youth sector and youth services locally, and other public services. It is important to put on the record the great support that the police and health care services in my area provide to youth projects. However, before we can get to the great world in which the voluntary youth sector is more involved in running services, we will see it being cut off at the start, so that it will be unable to do some of the more innovate partnership work we all want to see happen.

I shall make my third and final point brief because I recognise that we are short of time. The challenge we are facing is not difficult economic circumstances but the question, “What are our priorities?” If our priority is to get best value for money, it is clear from the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West that investment in voluntary youth services and youth services locally reaps dividends well beyond the initial financial investment.

What is the best way to tap into the ability and interest in volunteering with young people locally, and how best to support it? I welcome some of the ideas the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has come up with, but he did not say how he would get the youth services bus to the youth disco, or who would pay for the person who organises and manages that. That is our critique. The hon. Gentleman’s ideas are fantastic, but how will he make them happen? Delivery and implementation—

[Justin Tomlinson]

There is still funding, although all hon. Members accept that that there are challenges in that regard. My point is that people should make the best use of their resources. I would expect that to be a priority in respect of organisations’ funding.

[Stella Creasy]

No one doubts the need to make the best use of resources, but cutting resources year in, year out with no alternative and asking the voluntary sector to pick up the slack does not add up. For example, it is explicit in the tender document for the national citizen service that the Government are already saying, “We will not fund this properly. We’re expecting the voluntary sector to pay for it.” Many voluntary sector organisations that might work with youth services in future to provide the more creative services that the hon. Gentleman was talking about are dependent on public sector funding, so they will be unable to do the work he wants to happen, let alone to provide services not just for 16-year-olds for three weeks over the summer, but for every age group at the point at which they need intervention.

I plead with all hon. Members to give the Minister the evidence and encouragement he needs to return to his colleagues and fight for the funding that youth services so desperately need to deliver services that we all want for young people in our communities. I am looking forward to welcoming the Minister to Walthamstow tomorrow, so that we can have a conversation about how he can fight for the funding he needs to deliver the services that all hon. Members in this Chamber want to see delivered.