HC Deb 12 March 2004 vol 418 cc1815-24

Order for Second Reading read

1.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time

Even at this late stage of the day, I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House a very serious and growing problem of criminal activity, which is particularly targeted at elderly and vulnerable people. Cold calling covers a multitude of sins but, in essence, it means making an unrequested and unarranged approach to a person with a view, to selling them something. There is much telephone cold calling, but I am concerned with people calling in person, unrequested, at other people's houses. Sometimes, that is a front for what is known as distraction robbery, but that is not what I am concerned about on this occasion.

The Bill deals with individuals, or more often gangs, who approach people at their home and offer property repairs. The most common property repair offered appears to be the laying of tarmac on people's drives, although other repairs are also offered—of course, sometimes the work is genuine and well done. However, the problem is increasing, and criminal gangs are making a dishonest living from preying on vulnerable and elderly people in our society.

Let me give some examples. An elderly woman from north Yorkshire was called and quoted £3 per sq m for resurfacing her drive. She was told that the people were from the local highways department and that they had some leftover materials. After laying approximately 120 sq m extremely poorly, they told her that the charge would be nearly £7,000 and that they would return later to collect the money. Mrs. L contacted both the police and trading standards officers. She tried to reason with the trader, but she was told that, unless she paid, someone would come round and damage her property, and that gentleman added that he did not mind doing another five years in prison, as he had already done 14. Mrs. L felt so vulnerable, distressed and fearful that she paid up in any case and declined tot make a statement or otherwise assist further with the investigation.

Another elderly woman from West Yorkshire was happy to help when a caller asked to leave a large roller in her drive overnight, rather than taking it back to his yard. The following morning he called and thanked her for her kindness, and to say "thank you," he told her that he had some tarmac left over from a previous job and that he would do her drive for just £400. She replied that she did not have £400—so, as a favour, they agreed on £300, but when the job was done, he demanded £2,600, saying that she must have misheard, and he became threatening. He ordered a taxi and drove her down to the bank to withdraw the cash, although she did not hand it over immediately. When she returned to her home, she slipped out of the backdoor to a neighbour's house to ask for help. She phoned the trading standards officers, only to be told that they could not help; it was a police matter. She phoned the police, who said that it had nothing to do with them; it was civil matter. She remains worried to this day. One might ask what sort of person is around in our society who treats elderly people like that. Again, that is a rather sad reflection on society.

Another example from closer to home, from my constituency, involves not an elderly or vulnerable person, but a small business man—fit, healthy and in middle age. I shall quote his case because it is a very good illustration of such criminal activity. In November 2001, he wrote to me about extortion rackets in Leicestershire, and said: This Extortion Racket seems commonplace …and because the Police turned their back on it, I believe that it is important to bring it to your attention I do not want my name used in publicity …the police cannot and will not protect me… On Thursday, I was offered a load tarmac from an Irishman at the gate at work. Over the years we have bought a large number of loads of road scrapings when the roads are being resurfaced and have never had any problem. I negotiated …a very favourable price of £25 per load and …doubled checked that … After it was laid the gang who laid it asked for £5,000 at £25 per square yard. When I protested they attacked me and pushed"— the business man's colleague— before jumping in the car shouting threats. From Thursday morning until today …they have been phoning every 5 minutes promising violence to me, my family and my staff… The police said it was a commercial dispute. They listened to a phone call when I was being threatened but said they could do nothing about it. I should settle… The Irishmen kept telling me that the police could not and would not touch them and that they did not bother taxing their cars, nor with the drink drive laws. They claimed that the police were scared stiff of them…It may be bravado, but the reaction of the police rather bore out their claims I employed a…security guard… After two days of harassment, my staff were scared stiff. I decided to settle and agreed to pay them £2,200. They sent a taxi driver to collect it. The then chief constable replied to my letter and said: Whilst the officer was with your constituent, four telephone calls were received from the suppliers…in relation to payment for the service…It is clear that prior to this there has been some intimidation Finally, following the chief constable's letter, my constituent wrote and said: I did not want to pursue the complaint because we are a very vulnerable site and a lot of damage could be done to my site… In addition at this time of the year many female staff are going home, alone, in the dark, many of them on bicycles and the perpetrators had made it quite clear what they would like to do with my female staff. If the police cannot realistically protect them then it is irresponsible of me to put their safety at risk…if the Police want assistance in bringing the perpetrators to justice I will testify, so long as I can be assured of police protection The fact that people can get away with such threatening behaviour is a matter of shame for our society and the police. Although I do not particularly blame Leicestershire police—indeed, the chief constable's letter was very sympathetic—law-abiding people should, nevertheless, always feel able to report crimes to the police and to rely on the police in this country. Incidentally, I mentioned that those involved were Irish in quoting my constituent's letter and in stating a fact—it is not meant to be an attack on the Irish nation in general.

Last week, like all hon. Members, I received an update on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I should like to quote from it: Operation Delham was run by the London Crime Squad, and targeted a crime family, the Vincents, based in Orpington…Three generations of the family targeted elderly vulnerable victims in the South London area…who they would approach and persuade that essential roofing work was necessary to their properties. Once the victims agreed either no work or badly completed work was carried out, resulting in an inflated bill. The average amount charged to re-roof a 3 bedroom house would be in the region of £37,000. What is excellent in this case is that those responsible were charged and sentenced to imprisonment for up to six years, and have had confiscation orders made against them whose aggregate total was a benefit of almost £2 million. I use the case as an illustration of how widespread this criminal activity can be, and how lucrative.

As a final illustration, I might mention my late father, who had a similar although less dreadful experience when aged about 80. He was approached on the basis that his drive needed retarmacking, and he unwisely agreed. The job was done very badly and very quickly, for the grand sum, as I recall, of about £2,000, which he had to pay in cash. Of course, he subsequently had to have the drive redone, as the tarmac was a complete waste of time and money. My father, to whom I was devoted, was extremely embarrassed, although he was fortunate in being able to afford the rip-off.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con)

I cannot over-emphasise the importance of what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve in his Bill. He may be aware that I brought to the attention of the House a similar experience when my then 89-year-old father was tricked into repeatedly going to the bank to withdraw a total of £7,500 in cash to give to a builder, purely because the builder recognised that he had a short£term memory problem. The only reason why this scoundrel was exposed was that I was able to raise the matter in the House, and "The Ferret"—an investigative programme in Wales—exposed him. We definitely need protection from this form of ruthless exploitation.

Mr. Robathan

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the point that such things are happening not only in the midlands, but throughout the country. They are a real and growing problem and are targeted at elderly and vulnerable people such as both our fathers.

It is estimated that at least 16,000 similar bogus trading incidents are reported to trading standards each year, but centralised figures reported to the police on top of those are not available, so the problem is almost certainly much more widespread, and I believe that it is growing. At the same time, it has been calculated that the average cost of such property repairs, whether to drives or roofs, is £2,000, so we are talking about crime that involves at least £32 million a year, although the true amount is probably greatly in excess of that figure.

It is not only the crime that is a concern, but the fear and distress that is caused to many people. Hon. Members may have read in the newspapers on 5 March about a plumber remanded to Lewes Crown court for sentencing after being blamed for contributing to the death of a pensioner. The plumber, Gary Seabrook, charged 73-year-old Muriel Burbage £5,225 for clearing a drain. He drove her down to the post office, so that she could hand over her pension, and then to the bank to withdraw money. Miss Burbage died two months later, and Seabrook was blamed for bringing about her rapid physical and mental decline.

I refer to that case, which would not be covered by my Bill, to show how ruthless people can prey on the elderly and how inflated bills can deeply distress pensioners in particular, who may have money worries anyway, to which the factor of fear and intimidation is added.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

My hon. Friend might have intended to deal with this point later. Is he satisfied with the definition of property service, which is key to the terms of his Bill? In my reading, the phrase could cover such things as double glazing or the installation of heat exchangers or television satellite aerials. Is he satisfied that his Bill is sufficiently narrowly defined and that it could not catch by accident a lot of perfectly legitimate and indeed rather beneficial activities?

Mr. Robathan

My right hon. Friend makes an important point—I am always grateful to him for his assiduous study of legislation and his constructive contributions. I am not particularly satisfied with the Bill's definitions, which need to be developed in Committee, although I fear that the Bill will not get that far.

Cold calling is not generally welcomed by the British public. The Trading Standards Institute carried out an extensive household survey in November 2002 which revealed that 95.7 per cent. of householders do not want doorstep sellers cold calling.

Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab)

The hon. Gentleman has moved on from the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but is it not the case that no reputable building company needs to cold call, which is why the Federation of Master Builders supports the Bill? That should be a comfort to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robathan

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree with him. There are not many people who sit at home waiting for builders to knock on the door and tell them that their drive needs to be repaired or that there is a hole in the roof.

The police are in a difficult position. The criminals involved know that if they undertake some work, however badly and quickly, it is a commercial transaction, so any challenge becomes a civil dispute between the contractor and the consumer. My Bill seeks to tackle that problem, which partly addresses the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The issue has been recognised by the Office of Fair Trading, which has referred to a "considerable enforcement gap" in the law. Cold calling, as has been said, is not just about repairing drives—it also undertaken by unemployed people selling dusters and legitimate salesmen selling double glazing. Nevertheless the practice is not popular, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that services may be too widely drawn in the Bill.

I do not wish to make a complicated law that is too regulatory, harms businesses and increases bureaucracy, and the Bill would not do so. The Trading Standards Institute survey, to which I referred, found that 10 per cent. of households reported problems with cold calling for property repair and maintenance in the previous two years, which illustrates the scale of the problem. Such property repairs are carried out by criminal gangs. There is no written contract, and the unwritten contract is completed immediately or very swiftly. Some people may think that the Bill is draconian but, as the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said, it will not affect reputable businesses. It is designed to catch people who undertake criminal activity, not legitimate businesses. It is not designed to stop unemployed people selling dusters door to door, however intimidating some old people find them. Indeed, people have written to me saying that they would prefer it if no one knocked on their door. The Bill will, I hope, stop the worst abuses. It is not perfect, but it does provide a solution to the problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)

I will have an opportunity to speak in detail latter, but the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the relationship between police and trading standards officers and the work done across many authorities. He will also be aware of the OFT report for which the Government are waiting. I have a great deal of sympathy with the issues that he has raised—indeed, I am glad that he has done so—but he will understand that we are waiting for that report.

Mr. Robathan

Indeed I do, and that is not a problem.

I hope that either my Bill or the Government will make it a criminal offence to knock on people's doors and offer to do up their drives immediately, rather than pretending, as now, that those activities are civil contracts. That would allow the police, when called, to intervene, which they believe they cannot do now. It is not a complicated Bill and, I stress I do not want to increase the regulatory burdens. I just want to protect vulnerable people in our society and ban immediate work and payment for property repairs.

The Office of Fair Trading, to which the Minister referred, published a position paper last week which recommends that the Government pursues legislative options for tackling bogus traders Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I do not believe that my Bill is perfect. Given time constraints, I shall not go through all its clauses, not least because it is highly unlikely to become law—unless the Minister is about to surprise me.

I hope that the Bill and the debate will raise the profile of the crime so that people understand how serious the matter may be. I have met the Minister a couple of times and had very good discussions with him about it. I understand from an Adjournment debate initiated last Wednesday in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Pudsey that the Government understand the problem. We look forward to the Office of Fair Trading report, which is to be published next month. I understand also that the Minister—I shall quote his words back to him—told David Byers, the Lobby correspondent of the Leicester Mercury, my local newspaper, that 'the Government would take action— The report continues: Mr. Sutcliffe told the Mercury that a cross-departmental committee of Ministers would be set up to decide on what the new legislation would contain. He went on to say: Andrew Robathan's Bill may not be the complete answer, and he accepts that indeed I do but it's the spirit that he wants us to administer in legislation. Finally, the Minister is reported as saying I'm giving a commitment that this issue will be tackled by the best means possible and that's probably the strongest commitment we've had on this issue for some time.

Mr. Sutcliffe

I am happy to repeat that commitment. I will take action along the lines set out by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robathan

I am grateful to the Minister. Knowing him, I respect and like him. We have pulled together in a tug-of-war team, if nothing else—unsuccessfully.

Mr. Forth

Hardly the basis for legislation.

Mr. Robathan

Perhaps not, but I am sure that the Minister's intentions are good, and I very much hope that, assuming the Bill does not go into Committee, the Government will take legislative steps in the near future to prevent criminal gangs preying on elderly and vulnerable people who, up to now, have lacked proper protection from the law and the police

2.16 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on bringing this important Bill before the House. As he rightly said, cold calling is a broad issue and raises a number of problems. The Bill focuses on one aspect, albeit a significant one. Although I realise it is impossible to give the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) any comfort with regard to private Members' Bills, the Bill is not intended to be a one-club solution to the criminal and unscrupulous activities that include cold calling as a tactic. It is not a knee-jerk reaction, it is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it is not the thin end of a larger wedge that would outlaw all forms of legitimate cold calling. I hope that no group and no hon. Member would attempt to thwart the Bill or any of its successors, if it is unsuccessful, because of such concerns.

The Bill is a long overdue and robust response to a growing and crucial element of criminal and unscrupulous cold calling. It would be a major piece of artillery in the battle against doorstep criminals and unscrupulous high-pressure sellers, such as those whom the hon. Member for Blaby so graphically described. In the Adjournment debate that I was fortunate to secure last week, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers recognised the scale of the problem and expressed his readiness to take robust measures. In particular, I@@ welcomed his assurance that there would be a joined-up Government approach in collaboration with Ministers from other Departments.

I was also delighted that the following day we had the position statement from the Office of Fair Trading. As the hon. Member for Blaby noted, it recommended that the Government should pursue four legislative options for tackling bogus traders. These were, first, a proposed new fraud offence; secondly, a fraudulent trading offence for individuals; thirdly, a ban on work or payment within seven days of a cold call; and finally, a ban on cold calling for property maintenance or repairs. The latter issue is, of course, the subject of the Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that although those who operate at the coal face against doorstep crime see merit in the first three options, they are likely to prove extremely limited in practice.

The bogus property repairer is a cunning and cynical moving target. He travels the country, carefully selects and robs his victims, and then moves on. The first three legislative measures recommended by the OFT are rather like a muzzle-loading musket—cumbersome and slow to load, aim and fire. They are also likely to prove inaccurate. But an outright ban is more like a rifle—quicker to use, aim and fire.

Although everyone is potentially a victim of doorstep crime, research shows that the typical victim is an 81-yearold woman living alone. As has rightly been said, it is a despicable offence. It robs vulnerable people, especially older people, not only of their pensions, savings and treasured possessions, but of something far more damaging-their pride, their self-respect and, in some cases, their independence and even their will to live.

Six years ago, I was involved in a campaign in my constituency against a company called Midland Coating, whose particular stock in trade was to offer people free property surveys, then to proceed to scare them into believing that their homes were about to fall apart and charge them unnecessarily large sums for negligible, shoddy or even non-existent work. Through the campaign, we managed to get the company closed down, but it was simply one of many hundreds that have operated since.

I soon learned that while Midland Coating probably represented the bad, unscrupulous, high-pressure side of doorstep calling, distraction burglary represents the downright ugly side. I was contacted by Claire Morrow, chair of the Leeds distraction burglary project. With my support, that project was able to obtain Home Office funding of £500,000, which was well spent. That showed what can be done in the community to tackle the issue of doorstep crime, but it is simply not enough.

My involvement in these issues brought me into contact with a gentleman called Brian Steele, a former detective chief superintendent who became co-ordinator of the Leeds distraction burglary project. When the project came to an end, Brian's expertise was recruited by the astute head of North Yorkshire trading standards department, Stuart Pudney, on behalf of a consortium of northern trading standards authorities.

I have been delighted to work in Parliament for the objective of obtaining a ban on cold calling for the purpose of soliciting property repairs. I emphasise the point that no reputable company needs to cold call- that needs repeating again and again. A ban would not affect in any way, shape or form those who are involved in maintenance or repair of property, but it would catch the villains. I therefore tabled early-day motion 219.

Shona Mclsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab)

I have been listening carefully to the debate. I recently received a complaint from a constituent about a new form of cold calling —automatically calling many numbers at once. A person's phone may continue to ring all night, but whenever they pick it up the line is dead. Would the Bill cover that sort of activity?

Mr. Truswell

It would not prevent cold calling from being conducted by a telesales firm. We are trying to combat those who turn up on the doorsteps of vulnerable people, inveigle their way into their homes, then proceed to rob them, at best, or sometimes to assault or even to kill them.

I realise that the Government—even this Government, and even given the caveats attached by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst —are loth to introduce bans and will do so only as a last resort. However, those who work at the sharp end day after day, week after week, and month after month to deal with these villains feel that every other legal avenue, including those mentioned by the OFT, would be insufficient to tackle the problem.

I shall give an example of the type of case that we are dealing with. It is rather graphic and extreme, but it gives some idea of the scale of the problem. During Brian Steele's period as head of the West Yorkshire murder squad, he unfortunately had to investigate the murder of an 82-year-old lady called Isobel Gray. Isobel was severely disabled with curvature of the spine. She was a serial victim of bogus property repairers, and was eventually murdered by distraction burglars who knew that she had paid those people in cash, which was her big mistake. They forced their way violently into her home, tortured her to discover the whereabouts of the cash that they knew she kept in the house, broke her back and left her to choke on her own vomit. That is an extreme and graphic case, but an important one.

Mr. Sutcliffe

Would my hon. Friend also like to describe the way in which Detective Steele spoke to the individual responsible and what he had to say?

Mr. Truswell

My hon. Friend pre-empts me-I was about to speak about that. Any Bill that deals with such matters deserves the title "Isobel's law". My hon. Friend the Minister and others know about the Home Office-funded research that Brian Steele conducted into distraction burglaries. It involved interviewing several perpetrators in prison. Anyone who has heard Brian speak on the subject or read his research will be aware that he describes graphically how the perpetrators did not show the slightest remorse for their crimes and viewed older people merely as the impersonal objects of their cunning and proud trade. They said that they could smell money in an older person's home. They also told Brian that they were prepared, if thwarted and if all else failed, to do what they called a "naughty one" and use violence to achieve their ends. They described the way in which they bought and sold the names of their victims—victims, presumably, such as Isobel Gray.

Tackling the problem is not easy. That is why those who are responsible for trying to deal with the villains have reached the conclusion that only a Bill such as the measure that the hon. Member for Blaby is promoting will work in practice.

Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not simply a problem of people trying to sell something on the doorstep but of people trying to buy things from vulnerable people on the doorstep? In welcoming the important measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is promoting, perhaps the Minister will extend his crosscutting, joined-up approach with the board that he has announced to cover those who wish to buy from vulnerable and elderly people.

Mr. Truswell

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would like to intervene to give such a commitment from the horse's mouth. I know that he is covering the whole issue of cold calling and doorstep crime.

As the hon. Member for Blaby and I have reiterated, the Bill is narrowly targeted on a specific aspect of cold calling. If the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) reads the Minister's response to my Adjournment debate last week, I am sure that he will find the reassurance that he seeks.

It is not easy to deal with the problem. The hon. Member for Blaby mentioned last year's Trading Standards Institute survey, which involved interviewing 9,000 people. Worryingly, approximately 62 per cent. of householders reported receiving cold calls in the previous month. It is therefore prevalent in our society. Even more worrying, 21 per cent. reported a recent bad experience. It is clear from such research that the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that the existing official figures for cold calling probably dramatically under-represent its prevalence.

Another worrying aspect was the low level of household security. Only 13 per cent. of people reported asking for identification and only 1.3 per cent. —a pathetic handful—would ever check them.

It is tempting to continue but I shall truncate my speech to give my hon. Friend the Minister a few minutes to respond. He knows the points that the hon. Member for Blaby raised and that people such as me will continue to grind away at him. I know that he accepts that the extent of the problem is far greater than the official statistics suggest. I therefore emphasise that it is not only time to act but to do it soon and courageously. If we do that, perhaps Isobel Gray will not have died in vain.

2.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)

I cannot deal with all the points hat have been made but I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on raising important issues. We have spoken about them several times and I have also discussed them with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell). Although we believe that there are deficiencies in the Bill, we want to implement its spirit. We shall examine the Office of Fair Trading report and we have already made an announcement. I believe that the hon. Member for Blaby makes a genuinely valid point and that we need to examine all the points that he raises.

Yesterday, I was in Birmingham—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned

Debate to be resumed on 26 March