HC Deb 05 February 2001 vol 362 cc772-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

10.25 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the important matter of unsolicited mail. Members of political parties—that is most of us in the House—may have occasion to use unsolicited mail over the next few months, but I wish to refer to something that has a rather more malign intent than most of the material that is produced by political parties.

It may seem to most of us that 8 February will be an ordinary parliamentary day. We will discuss the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill—which has its merits, but it is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. However, anyone in the position of my constituent, Mr. K. Bond of Castle Cary, who received a letter some weeks ago from an Eva Damus, clairvoyant, medium and astrologer, might take a much more serious view about the prospects for that day. That is the date on which Mrs. Eva Damus believes that she needs to undertake a grand mystic ceremony on behalf of Mr. Bond and the many thousands of other people to whom she has written. She must do that because those people are born under the disastrous influence of a very harmful lunar coil which has kept you imprisoned in a negative circle". Curiously enough, that negative circle can be lifted by the application of a mere £20 to the account of Eva Damus and the placing of a few magnets around the home. It is curious that not only has she discovered that dark secret by extensive work on a person's birth and personality chart, but has managed to do so without knowing the date of birth of the person involved. One is requested to send that information with the £20 should one be foolish enough to respond to the request.

The subject would be funny if it were not so serious. Many people take the receipt of such a letter extremely seriously; they would consider it a genuine threat. The letters are all the more insidious because they are so carefully personalised. The recipient is named throughout the letter, and the letter's heading states: What I have just discovered about you has left me speechless. It leaves me speechless that people can prey on vulnerable people in the way that the organisations that send out such letters do. Mr. Bond was absolutely right to draw this letter to my attention, and it was one of the reasons—if not the only one—why I sought this debate.

Once I had secured this debate, I was overwhelmed by colleagues who have told me that their constituents have received similar material through their letter boxes. To give one example, a letter from a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) purports to be a payment validation for a sum of £200,000. It appears on an official looking form that is clearly designed to mimic a Government document; it looks very like a pension slip. It asks only for the recipient to send what it calls an actuation fee of £16. The money can be sent as cash, or by cheque or postal order. It is only when we turn over the document and read the small print that we realise that all that is on offer is a draw, albeit one with a £16 entry fee. Even if the letter is not a criminal deception, it is certainly a scam that it is intended to deceive and is something that we could do without.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) gave me another bundle of letters this morning. By coincidence, she received the letters today from a constituent of hers, Mrs. Margaret Treacher, to whom they have been sent during the past week or so from places throughout the world. They come from Australia, Singapore, Canada and other places. Some of them appear to originate in Britain. All of them purportedly bear the good news that their recipient has won a cash prize, but they are junk mail that is designed to extract money under false pretences. If the letters do not ask for a cheque by return of post for so-called validation, they request that recipients ring a premium number that will keep them on the line for a number of minutes, very expensively, in order to receive a paltry prize such as a Biro. Curiously, some people seem to be identified as potential victims of such material and receive not one or two such requests, but dozens.

Other scams have been conducted through the post. A favourite is the letters originating in west Africa. They come principally from Nigeria and ask people for money to unlock supposed capital that would, they claim, otherwise be held in trust or in a west African company. They are, of course, nonsense and if one were foolish enough to send the money, it would never be seen again.

I believe that such scams are a serious problem for all our constituents and that the House and the Government would do well to deal with them. I have corresponded on the matter with the Post Office and with the Office of Fair Trading. The Post Office supports the mailing preference system and has what it calls the door-to-door scheme, which enables people to opt out of unwanted material by ensuring that it is taken by the postman. However, I believe that the Post Office could do a lot more to deal with letters that originate from outside this country, pass through the Mailsort system and often use London post office box numbers—a practice that appears to give them a vestige of respectability.

I am, however, disappointed by some of the responses that I have received. There is a clear suggestion that the marketing exercise in question is fairly profitable for the Post Office, and that it is not anxious to intervene if it can help it. Although Royal Mail accepts the need to deal with mailing that infringes legislation or advertising codes, it states in its letter to me that it would not be aware of this as we have no prior knowledge of the contents of mailings; we would instead rely on law enforcement agencies to bring such mailings to our attention. Fair enough; I do not expect Royal Mail to be aware of the contents of every letter that passes through the mail system.

However, some of the mailings can be clearly identified from previous experience. What action is taken if such mail is identified or brought to Royal Mail's attention? It states: In such an instance we would of course stop the mailing, if we were able to do so. However, it goes on to state that it would work with the overseas company to ensure that future mailings are acceptable to a UK audience. It further states: In the unlikely event of a third such incident we would withdraw mailing discounts and use of a UK PO box from that company for a specified period of time. I think that three strikes are a little too many before people are out in respect of the sort of letters to which I am referring. It is not unintentional infringement of advertising regulations but a deliberate attempt to deceive, and the Post Office should treat it seriously.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of a leaflet published by Royal Mail, entitled "Fair Play. Making the most of competitions—a guide to winning", which has a photograph on the front of two young people who are enthusiastic about letters that they have received. Although the leaflet refers to the Advertising Standards Authority and the Office of Fair Trading in relation to scams, it tells the reader: How to get more of what you want", saying: If you're fed up with hearing about how everyone is winning something these days except you, you may have to think about increasing your chances by upping the number of competitions that you enter. That can be interpreted as clearly encouraging action that relates to some of the scams that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Heath

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I know that he has taken up the matter, most recently in the Whitsun Adjournment debate last year. I am amazed that Royal Mail's advice is couched in those terms. It is not appropriate, and I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.

The Minister may also have something to say about whether it is possible to work within the international postal system to deal with these occurrences, because it clearly cannot be done entirely within the United Kingdom or the European Union, as many of the countries of origin are outside the EU. I wonder whether the Universal Postal Union, for example, could be a vehicle for at least discussing these matters and drawing up concordats with Commonwealth countries that are involved, if nowhere else.

The information that the Office of Fair Trading has sent me shows that it takes a rather more robust line. I applaud its press release last August which drew attention to the so-called psychic scam that I have mentioned. However, the legal apparatus within which the OFT works is also limited. There are the Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations 1988, but if those are to be activated, there must be a complaint in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of goods or services". That is all right if the courts will accept that it is a trade or profession to try to defraud innocent members of the public, but otherwise it is a worrying limitation.

The OFT's great problem is getting court orders to act overseas. That is where the injunctions directive comes in. I understood that it was to have taken effect from 1 January, but it has not done so and there are still problems with it. That directive is crucial if we are to take effective action against such material, at least within the European Union. What has happened to that directive? Can it be extended beyond the EU, if and when it sees the light of day? How does the Minister expect it to be used?

The last legal sanction available is the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which makes it an offence to convey information that is known or believed to be false with the intention to cause distress and anxiety. The material that I have mentioned is clearly false information that is intended to cause distress and anxiety with the purpose of extracting money from people. I should like the Minister to tell the House how many times that law has been used recently, and whether it will be used more extensively in future, as I hope it will.

This is a short debate and it is impossible to cover the whole subject, but I want to mention two other concerns before I ask the Minister to respond. The first concerns communications sent not by post but by fax. We are all victims of this. The fax machine goes off in the middle of the night and a fax emerges from an unknown source, which is a waste of paper and wakes one up, if one happens to have a fax machine in the house, to no good effect. That is a nuisance, rather than an attempt to extract money under false pretences such as those that I have described, but it is a costly nuisance. It is often used to support fallacious opinion polls of no statistical value. People sometimes feel constrained to answer those faxes on premium lines if they want to make their point.

Such faxes are often received by junior members of companies who feel obliged to respond, for example, to a request to maintain an entry in a non-existent directory. That is a common form of exploitation. What can be done about it?

My final point is about unsolicited e-mail, which is infamously known as spam. I applaud British internet service providers for taking the subject seriously. However, 30 per cent. of all e-mails are unsolicited, and research by Nortel suggests that tens of millions of pounds are wasted in the United Kingdom and Ireland on dealing with them. In America, it is estimated that 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of internet service providers' disk space is filled with spam. If nothing else, that shows that spam and chips are not compatible. The issue should be tackled through international action.

We have a problem about which most hon. Members and, I am sure, the Government are aware. I have several questions to ask the Minister. How many prosecutions or court orders have been made in the past year or so to tackle the matter? When will the injunctions directive be operational so that jurisdiction can be extended throughout the European Union? Can Royal Mail take a more aggressive and more responsible stance on the abuse? Can international action be taken through the Universal Postal Union or any other organisation to achieve a concordat at least between Commonwealth countries and perhaps the wider community? Can the Government take effective action on nuisance faxes? Clearly, concerted international action needs to be taken, especially in conjunction with the American Administration, so that nuisances that clog up the e-mail and internet systems and are detrimental to businesses and private users throughout the world can be tackled. When can that be done?

I am grateful for the opportunity to make those points. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.

10.42 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells)

I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) for raising an important matter. He is right to say that many hon. Members have approached him and me about it. I share the anxiety of many people about mailings sent to British consumers which, in many cases, are designed to frighten them into parting with their money. I shall try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's questions, although I could not write them all down fast enough.

More often than not, the mailings come from so-called clairvoyants who are based overseas. They allege that they have had a mystic revelation about the individual to whom they are writing. A common theme is that the author has an insight into potential problems that will affect consumers' well-being—either a threat from someone else or the fact that some unidentified bad luck will befall them. He or she offers to provide the solution to those difficulties in return for a payment. As the hon. Gentleman said, payments are typically of £20 or more. The Welsh Rugby Union paid a great deal more than £20 to try to avert identifiable bad luck. However, judging from the way Wales played last Saturday, it seems that the WRU might as well have paid £20 to Peter the Magician. The result would probably have been far better.

The approaches are clearly designed to prey on people's vulnerability and are, by definition, unacceptable. Another theme is that some good fortune awaits the recipient, whether through lottery winnings or some other life-enhancing event, and that the key to success is available at a price. I have seem many such letters in my postbag, from people rejoicing in such names as Eva du Maurier, Paula Zikorski and Peter the Magician. I know a Pete the chemist in Pontypridd, but he has five children and is clearly no magician.

From time to time, unfortunately, the mailings are sent to the deceased, which must surely throw considerable doubt on the psychic skills of their authors. The advice from the Office of Fair Trading, which I would commend to anyone who is concerned about the practices, is never to send money, and to pass the correspondence to the local trading standards department so that appropriate action can be taken. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass that suggestion on to his constituents.

The hon. Gentleman asked what action could be taken on behalf of consumers. Two pieces of legislation may be applicable: the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. At present, action can be taken against operators based in this country by the Advertising Standards Authority or the Director General of Fair Trading using those two pieces of legislation.

The Advertising Standards Authority can also arrange for the investigation of overseas operators with the help of other members of the European Advertising Standards Alliance. The alliance has 28 members, including all the EU member states, and comprises the national bodies responsible for administering the states' self-regulation systems and codes of advertising practice, based on those put in place by International Chamber of Commerce principles. Recently the ASA, with the backing of Royal Mail, has begun intervening directly in complaints about mailings originating outside the alliance's sphere of operations, and has made encouraging progress. I hope that that provides some kind of an answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions on how many successful prosecutions or enforcements have been conducted.

We are also aiming for the earliest possible implementation of the European injunctions directive—we are almost there now—which will empower the Director General of Fair Trading to take cross-border action. The hon. Gentleman was keen on such action being taken, and I agree with him. The action will be taken in conjunction with counterparts across the European Union to impose "stop now" orders, which are an additional enforcement mechanism for use when the collective interests of consumers are threatened.

For operators based further afield, the Office of Fair Trading works closely with its counterparts in the 30 or so Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, through the international marketing supervision network. The member bodies have had some success in stopping some of the worst cases targeting UK consumers. I assure the House that I shall continue to monitor the matter with a view to reducing consumer detriment arising from these undesirable practices.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about Royal Mail and about his dissatisfaction with some of the efforts that it has made to try to deal with the delivery of unsolicited mail. Royal Mail is contractually obliged to deliver items posted at home or abroad, unless it is established that the contents contravene EU or UK laws. If a mailing breaches EU or UK regulations, Royal Mail can refuse to carry it, but it has to be notified first. The bodies or groups that can notify Royal Mail are the ASA, the police, trading standards officers and magistrates. That brings me back to a point I made earlier, when I suggested to the hon. Gentleman that, whenever such a case as this arises, it is imperative that notification is made to trading standards officers.

Mr. Heath

I understand that Royal Mail has to carry what it is given, unless there is a direction to the contrary. Surely, however, it must enter into some sort of contractual arrangement when it provides a PO box number. Given the hoops through which we all have to jump to get material distributed by Royal Mail, is there some control that Royal Mail could exercise when giving an organisation a PO box number?

Dr. Howells

Yes. I shall deal with that now. If any UK PO box is used illegally or for fraudulent purposes or if customers break the service terms and conditions, which they must sign, that PO box can be withdrawn. Once that happens, all subsequent mail addressed to the box is returned to sender. Royal Mail is not permitted to intercept or open mail that quotes or is addressed to a PO box, but if permission for the box is withdrawn, all mail sent to it is returned to sender. The majority of mailings from abroad conform with UK legislation and the British codes of advertising and sales promotion.

Mr. Barnes

For Royal Mail, that is not just a matter of PO box numbers. It also offers HQ code provision, which allows a HQ number and "Royal Mail" to be added to the front of an envelope. That contractual arrangement enables cheap delivery of post from all over the world to people in this country. Such scams are being operated under HQ code provision and surely action can be taken. Royal Mail should be shown what is in such envelopes. That would stop the arrangement for such companies.

Dr. Howells

That is a good point and I shall try to deal with it. Should a mailing infringe either legislation or advertising codes, Royal Mail would rely on law enforcement agencies to bring that mailing to its attention and stop it if able to do so. That is where those contractual obligations are so important. If a company was working within the law, but not complying with the British codes of advertising and sales promotion, Royal Mail would work with the overseas company to ensure that future mailings were acceptable to UK customers. Further failures to comply would result in withdrawal of both mailing discounts—as my hon. Friend said, boxes are cheaper in such circumstances—and the use of a UK PO box for a specified period. The problem can be approached from both those angles.

On the distance selling directive, some protection can be offered. The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 do not specifically implement article 10 of European directive 97/7 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, which of course relates to unsolicited commercial communications from a business to consumers by phone, fax, mail or e-mail. On phone and fax communications, implementation has already been achieved by means of the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999.

I return to the point that I have made twice already about making sure that such incidents are notified to the authorities. All too often they are not. People receive mail and grumble about it, but do not take action. On mail and e-mail, my Department considers that the self-regulatory schemes that are in place provide a degree of necessary protection. That approach accords with article 11.4 of the directive, which provides for voluntary supervision by self-regulating bodies.

I return briefly to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made about Royal Mail's "Fair Play" leaflet, which he drew to my attention some months ago. Since then, my officials have discussed with Royal Mail whether the leaflet gives the most appropriate advice. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend—I do not think that it does. There is too much ambiguity and it leads people on, especially in view of the consequences for consumers of falling victim to the numerous scams in operation.

Unsolicited direct marketing faxes are banned under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999, unless the individual has given prior consent. For the purposes of the regulations, the term "individual" refers to both private individuals and sole traders anywhere in the United Kingdom as well as the partnerships in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We could add MPs to that, because we probably receive as many of those communications as any firm.

The regulations introduced an opt-out scheme primarily for corporate subscribers who do not want to receive unsolicited direct marketing faxes. The Direct Marketing Association was appointed by the Office of Telecommunications to run the opt-out scheme, which is called the fax preference service. Under the regulations, no one can send a direct marketing fax—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.