§ 11 am
§ Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab)I do not intend to cover every aspect of cold calling. My objective is to secure three things from the Minister: first, a recognition of the scale of the problem; secondly, a readiness to take serious and robust measures; and, thirdly, an assurance that the Government will take a joined-up approach.
Cold calling covers a multitude of sins and some not so sinful activities. I shall concentrate on the unquestionably criminal activities of distraction burglars, con merchants and fraudsters, as well as those activities that although not necessarily illegal, are immoral in the true sense of the word.
Although we are all potentially vulnerable to crime generated by cold calling, research shows that the typical victim is an 81-year-old woman living alone. With the exception of crimes against children, nothing fills me with greater anger and disgust than the actions of those who cynically target and exploit vulnerable older people, robbing them not only of their pensions, their savings and their treasured possessions, but of something far more damaging—their pride, their self-respect and, in some cases, their independence and even the will to live. No criminal better deserves the description of scum of the earth.
Cold calling is called the Leeds crime because it started there in the 1960s following heavy, destructive storms. The resulting damage presented con men with a heaven-sent opportunity. It is fitting that Leeds should remain at the forefront of tackling the crime.
My involvement with cold calling and distraction burglary goes back about six years. I have been closely involved in a campaign against a rogue company called Midland Coating. Its tactic was to offer people free property surveys, to scare them into believing that their homes were about to fall apart, and then charge the earth for unnecessary, negligible and often shoddy work.
As a result of a successful campaign to get Midland Coating closed, in which the Yorkshire Evening Post played a brilliant role, I was contacted by Claire Morrow of the Leeds distraction burglary project steering group. It soon became clear that although Midland Coating represented the bad side of doorstep calling, distraction burglary was downright ugly.
I was pleased to assist the project in lobbying the Home Office for a grant of £500,000. That was money well spent on a wide range of valuable initiatives. I am sure that a great deal can be learned nationally from that experience. I was delighted that lottery moneys enabled a successor project, the Leeds community distraction burglary initiative, to follow in its footsteps. It was a privilege to be asked to launch it a few weeks ago.
My involvement brought me into contact with Brian Steele, a former detective chief superintendent, who became the project's co-ordinator. His infectious, crusading spirit and his advocacy played a key role in moving distraction burglary up the agenda, not only locally but nationally. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister knows Brian only too well.
When the project came to an end, Brian's obvious expertise was snapped up by the astute head of North Yorkshire trading standards, Stuart Pudney, on behalf 274WH of a consortium of northern trading standards authorities. I am now working with them and the Trading Standards Institute on a parliamentary campaign for a law to ban cold calling for the purpose of offering property repairs. That would help to address the favourite modus operandi of distraction burglars and other criminals. It would also deal with those whose unscrupulous activities, while not necessarily illegal in the strict sense, are designed to fleece vulnerable and unwary people.
My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 219, and the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill, adopted by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), which is due to have its Second Reading on 12 March I look forward to that. He will also be aware of the excellent and hard-hitting newspaper campaign undertaken by the Yorkshire Evening Post in our area. Indeed, newspapers throughout the land have conducted impressive campaigns, including the Nottingham Evening Post and The Northern Echo.
I appreciate that the Minister awaits the Office of Fair Trading's report into the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux's super-complaint on cold calling. That has taken considerably longer than we all anticipated, although I appreciate that one of the main reasons is the commissioning of extra research on the prevalence of nefarious cold calling, which is still underestimated. I also realise that any Government would introduce a ban only as a last resort. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that those who must grapple with the issue daily are now talking about a ban as a last resort, having tried other approaches.
My hon. Friend will have heard Brian Steele describe how, as head of the West Yorkshire murder squad, he investigated the cruel and vicious murder of Isobel Gray. Isobel, an 82-year-old lady, severely disabled with curvature of the spine, was a serious victim of bogus property repairs and was eventually murdered by distraction burglars. They violently forced their way into her home, tortured her to discover the location of the cash that they knew she kept there, broke her back and left her to choke to death on her own vomit. That case in particular leads me to call a cold calling Bill "Isobel's Bill". It is said that good cases make bad law, but that is so when ill-considered legislation is rushed through as a knee-jerk reaction. Isobel Gray died seven years ago this month, so Isobel's law would not have been conceived on such a rushed basis.
My hon. Friend will also be aware of Brian Steele's research into distraction burglary, which involved interviewing a significant number of distraction burglars in prison. He describes graphically how they showed not the slightest remorse for their crimes; how older people were mere impersonal objects in their cunning and proud trade, as they saw it; how they could "smell" the money in an older person's home; how they were prepared, if thwarted, to do what they called "a naughty one" and use violence to achieve their ends; and how they bought and sold the names of victims—victims, presumably, like Isobel Gray. We need to operate at every level, from the Government down, to block the distraction burglar and literally form a human shield against the con artist and the rip-off merchant.
275WH That will not be an easy task. Last year, the Trading Standards Institute published a survey about doorstep selling. Some 9,000 randomly selected householders across the UK were asked to give their views on, and experiences of, doorstep callers. Not surprisingly, 96 per cent. said that they did not want doorstep sellers at all and only 0.1 per cent.—my arithmetic tells me that that is nine people out of 9,000—welcomed doorstep calling. It can therefore be said with some justification that in terms of public support we are pushing at an open door in calling for restrictions on cold calling. In the survey, 61.5 per cent. of householders reported receiving cold callers in the previous month, which is a very high rate indeed. Worryingly, up to 21 per cant. of householders reported having had a bad experience with a cold-calling doorstep seller, but only a small proportion of those reported it to the authorities, either to the police or trading standards.
Also of great concern was the low level of household security. Only 13.4 per cent. of people reported ever asking for identification and only 1.3 per cent.—a handful—ever checked it out. Even such basic measures as the use of door chains were disappointingly low, with 40 per cent. of householders having had one fitted, but only 6 per cent. ever using it.
The survey on bogus caller crime that Help the Aged conducted in summer 2003 added weight to those findings. According to the survey, police reports from 2001–02 and 2002–03 showed an average of 19,030 reported distraction burglary crimes in England and Wales a year. The survey, however, suggested that between 300,000 and 400,000 people aged 60 or over in Great Britain may have been approached by suspicious callers or distraction burglars in the past year alone.
Clearly, not all of those callers will have been distraction burglars. However, the results do show the level of cold calling and the potential for such crimes. Findings from the survey would also suggest that suspicious callers have gained entrance to the homes of approximately 180,000 people and that they will have stolen from approximately 122,000 of those.
The apparent underestimate of levels of distraction burglary may be down to a number of factors, which have been well rehearsed in the past. Those include inconsistencies in the way in which police forces collect figures. Victims of distraction burglary may also choose not to report the offence because of embarrassment or for other reasons. Many people have a fear of engaging in the criminal justice system and a fear that it will increase their vulnerability by identifying them as potential victims of crime. Some victims may even fail to recognise that valuables are missing from their home or may not link stolen moneys to a previous distraction burglary incident.
Many older adults—39 per cent. in the survey—did not report their experience of a suspicious caller to the police, particularly when the caller did not gain entrance to the home. Encouraging the reporting of such incidents to the police could greatly assist the identification and mapping of the activities of those particular criminals. Alarmingly, 25 per cent. of older people reported that they did not regularly lock their doors, making them even more vulnerable to such 276WH opportunistic crime. When faced with an unknown caller, 25 per cent. of respondents reported that they opened the door without taking any precautions.
Almost one third of respondents reported feeling worried some or all of the time when answering their door to someone they did not know. A huge proportion of people over 60 are fearful of what is waiting for them on the other side of the door. Eleven per cent. of respondents reported that they wanted help with the upkeep of the outside of their home, 9 per cent. wanted help with repairs to the inside of their home and another 9 per cent. wanted help with their gardens. Such a degree of need and of unmet need is obviously fertile territory for the operation of distraction burglars and bogus property repairers.
Local projects, such as the Leeds distraction burglary project and its successor, can of course do their utmost to reach vulnerable older people and raise awareness. We can give out the message about getting a chain and using it. We can tell people to check identity. We can make our targets harder. We can develop cold-calling protocols with utility companies and local authorities. However, people will always continue to remain vulnerable, too trusting or confused and will need far more help than that. That is why we need a multi-agency approach, not only locally, but underpinned by a similar cross-departmental national approach at central Government level.
The murkier side of cold calling presents a challenge that cannot be tackled by one Department or by one Minister, no matter how much we love and respect him. It is when community safety meets consumer protection, public health, social services and housing services. Community safety and crime are clearly the responsibility of the Home Office. However, the lead role now placed on local authorities means that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also a major player. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for consumer protection. The ability to cope at home, especially for our more vulnerable citizens, whatever their age, is a concern of the Department of Health, and of social services. Housing—a crucial part of the process—is a principal responsibility of the ODPM.
It is crucial that at least those Departments form the four legs of a sound stool, and not four separate stools through which the issues and, more importantly, the victims can fall. That is why we need a national taskforce to tackle the issue and the problems that it creates.
If a bogus caller gains entry and steals something, that is currently the responsibility of the police and the Home Office. However, if the caller claims to have carried out some work, no matter how minimal, shoddy or unnecessary, and then defrauds the householder of hundreds if not thousands of pounds, that is the responsibility of trading standards and the DTI. Both trading standards and police forces have many initiatives under way locally and nationally, but at a national level there needs to be joined-up thinking and joined-up working. A national taskforce would help to achieve that. The message to fit and use door chains is not just relevant to home security, and hence the Home Office, but should be reinforced by other Departments, such as the DTI, the Department of Health, the ODPM and others who deal with older and vulnerable adults.
277WH We have a single assessment procedure whereby people, particularly older adults, are assessed for the services that they need to maintain an independent lifestyle in their own homes. The scheme is a wonderful opportunity to assess home security and to take a few minutes to talk to people about dealing with doorstep callers. However, that rarely happens because the scheme operates under the aegis of a particular Department.
I shall finish as I started. This is a huge problem. We do not want to frighten vulnerable people, especially older people, but we do need to protect them, and we cannot play down the problem of cold calling. We can protect them only if there is a recognition of the scale of the problem, a readiness to take firm action and a coordinated response at national and local levels.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing the debate. He knows that I share his concerns. I am well aware of his interest in cold-calling crime and consumer detriment. I attended the seminar organised by him and the Trading Standards Institute on 4 February. It was a very worthwhile event, and I listened with great interest to what was said. I commend my hon. Friend and others who spoke—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the head of North Yorkshire trading standards and regulatory services, and former Detective Chief Superintendent Brian Steele—on their hard work in drawing attention to what I fully acknowledge is a serious problem. I was as alarmed as anyone to hear about the case of Isobel Gray and the torture that she suffered at the hands of people who dealt with her unmercifully. I know Brian Steele well. His portrayal of that event was very graphic but very relevant to the problem we face.
Cold calling by bogus or exploitative traders, who usually offer overpriced or substandard goods or services, is economically detrimental to consumers. Moreover, the targets for rogue traders in that sector are often vulnerable people, so detriment is often compounded by distress. That is clearly unacceptable. I am aware of the evidence linking cold calling that offers property services with crimes such as distraction burglary, which adds another unacceptable perspective to the problem. Sadly, such crimes have also been linked to cold callers claiming to represent a range of commercial and public bodies, including the utility companies and the health and social services. For those reasons, I am perfectly willing to agree that we must seriously consider tackling the problem and protecting consumers.
I am very conscious of the fact that the problems related to cold calling can be compounded by the fact that straightforward consumer detriment is a matter for local trading standards and that doorstep crime is a matter for the police. This reflects existing law and the role of the enforcement authorities, but the rogues can exploit the situation, as my hon. Friend said. Several initiatives aimed at improving co-operation between trading standards and the police are already tackling the problem with some success and I want such cooperation to become the norm throughout the country. 278WH There is also scope for closer co-operation between Departments with a policy interest in the subject to support the necessary co-operation at local level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety referred to that in a similar debate held before Christmas. She emphasised the importance of not allowing the problem to fall between the gaps that exist between departmental responsibilities. I endorse that sentiment wholeheartedly and would be happy to work with ministerial colleagues to help to develop more coordinated approaches to the problem. Officials in my Department and the Home Office have been in close contact on the issue for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, however, other Departments need to be involved, and I have suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister that we set up a cross-departmental committee of Ministers to examine the problem in greater detail.
The problems associated with the cold calling practised by various types of rogue trader do not exist in a vacuum. My hon. Friend is aware that the Government are already committed to a thorough review of the doorstep selling market as a whole. He referred to NACAB, now called Citizens Advice. It published "Door to Door", a report on doorstep selling, in 2002. The report contained evidence of the problems experienced by clients of citizens advice bureaux with a range of goods and services. It also contained several recommendations for improving consumer protection, which included the recommendation that traders trading in consumer goods should be under a general legal duty to trade fairly in the United Kingdom and in all other European Union states. That should be enforceable through stop now orders.
The report also recommended that the regulations on doorstep selling should be changed to provide a cooling-off period of 14 days for all contracts made in consumers' homes, irrespective of whether the visit was solicited by the consumer. Another recommendation is that the provision in the regulations on doorstep selling, under which the right to cancel in effect falls if a purchase is incorporated into the home during the cooling-off period, should be changed so that the cancellation right remains for the full period.
In addition to the obligatory mention in the sale contract, consumers should get a separate notice explaining their right to a cooling-off period and to cancel a contract. All consumers should be given a standard leaflet during any doorstep sale. It should be independently produced and include key information about the consumer's rights, questions to ask the salesman and sources of further information and advice, including how to complain and report traders who do not comply with the law.
The NACAB report was submitted to the Office of Fair Trading as a super-complaint under the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. During national consumer week 2002, the OFT announced that it would investigate the super-complaint. The investigation has considered practice in other European Union member states and the problems of bogus and exploitative trading. Possible outcomes of the investigation include: enforcement action by the OFT's competition enforcement and consumer regulation enforcement divisions; referral of the market to the Competition Commission; 279WH recommendations for changes in laws and regulations; recommendations to regulators. self-regulators and other bodies to consider changes to their rules; and campaigns to promote consumer education and awareness.
As my hon. Friend said, the investigation has taken longer than expected. That is partly because it has been necessary to consider many issues across various sectors in the doorstep selling market as a whole, but the OFT is expected to publish its report and recommendations in April. I look forward to the report and assure hon. Members that any recommendations will be carefully considered.
There is no doubt that cold calling by certain types of rogue traders may be a source of consumer detriment and distress. However, we must also recognise that although unscrupulous traders operate in the doorstep selling market, there are also a great many legitimate and reputable traders conducting business. Of course, it is clearly in the best interests of legitimate traders if the rogues are put out of business, not least because that would remove unfair and unscrupulous competition. When the OFT first announced that it would investigate the doorstep selling market in response to the super-complaint, it made it clear that it did not consider doorstep selling intrinsically wrong and that it could even be useful for some people, such as the housebound. I agree with that.
By way of example, the Direct Selling Association, which imposes stringent codes of practice on its members, estimates that that form of trading is a distribution channel which in the UK accounts for sales in excess of £4 billion per annum across a wide range of products and services. The DSA also estimates that almost 500,000 people are engaged in direct selling either full or part-time. Those are significant figures.
§ Mr. TruswellWe accept that it is because of the arguments that the Minister deploys that the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill is narrowly and specifically focused on those who solicit work for property repair or maintenance purposes. As such, it has the support of the Federation of Master Builders.
§ Mr. SutcliffeI appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend, who acknowledges the need for that narrow focus. I just wanted to describe the market's wider position.
The consumer protection measures that are in place provide the context for the OFT investigation and the NACAB report. Consumers purchasing goods or services at the door are directly protected by legislation known as the doorstep selling regulations, which consist of the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) (Amendment) Regulations of 1988 and 1998. My hon. Friend knows those regulations well. Collectively, they give consumers the right to a seven-day cooling-off period during which they may cancel an agreement to buy goods or services worth more than £35 from a trader whose visit was unsolicited. The regulations also provide that consumers who agree to a visit following an unsolicited doorstep approach retain 280WH their right to a seven-day cooling-off period. In addition, traders who fail to inform consumers in writing of their right to a cooling-off period commit a criminal offence. Door-to-door sellers must provide a notice setting out cancellation rights when any agreement is made. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable, whether a deposit is paid or not.
Since the first set of regulations implemented the doorstep selling directive in the UK in 1987, the protection for consumers has been further improved by subsequent regulation. I would expect the OFT to consider the effectiveness of the protection that the regulations now provide.
The Government are committed to placing empowered consumers at the centre of an effective competition regime. That means that consumers should be properly protected and informed to promote effective competition. Bogus or exploitative traders represent unfair competition to legitimate businesses. To help achieve their objective, the Government have introduced several new measures to protect and inform consumers.
The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the new concept of super-complaints and provided the legislative framework for the Office of Fair Trading to conduct an investigation of the doorstep selling market. It also included provisions to strengthen the powers available to enforcement authorities to tackle the activities of rogue traders. Stop now orders, which were introduced in 2001 by implementing the injunctions directive, created a new enforcement regime across a wide range of consumer protection legislation. Designated enforcement authorities could then apply to the courts for stop now orders to stop the practices of rogue traders if they went against the collective interests of consumers. The Act has extended that protection across an even wider range of consumer protection legislation, particularly in the service sector.
Another way in which we are informing and empowering consumers is by developing consumer support networks, which bring together organisations to plan and deliver better, more accessible and more joined-up support for local consumers. Throughout Britain, the networks are helping to raise awareness of consumer issues. That includes placing considerable emphasis on issues relating to sales in the home, particularly where vulnerable or older consumers are involved.
The Government have also made up to £30 million of new money available over a three-year period to roll out a new national consumer helpline—Consumer Direct—which is perhaps the most exciting development in consumer advice for a generation. With a single, widely publicised number, it will be a powerful tool for providing consumer advice throughout Britain. No matter where consumers live, they will be able to access reliable, independent help on consumer matters via their own phone for the price of a local-rate call. For those who prefer it, the service will be available online. At the beginning of the year, I announced the four regions that would start operating as pathfinders for the Consumer Direct service this summer. They are Scotland, Wales, the south-west and—my hon. Friend will happy about this—Yorkshire and Humber. Taken together, those measures strongly demonstrate the Government's real 281WH commitment to protecting the interests of consumers—particularly vulnerable consumers—from the activities of rogue and bogus traders.
My hon. Friend will know that the Trading Standards Institute launched a national survey on cold calling at the same time as the Office of Fair Trading announced its market study of doorstep selling. The result of the TSI survey was a report entitled "Door to Door Cold Calling of Property Repairs, Maintenance and Improvements—Long Overdue for Statutory Control". The report concluded that there was clear evidence to demonstrate significant consumer detriment from cold calling in relation to property services. In addition, the TSI concluded that the sector attracts criminal elements who, as my hon. Friend said, are willing to take advantage of consumers and to engage in more direct criminal activity. The report's recommendations included introducing a statutory prohibition on salesmen calling on householders unannounced to offer home improvements. The report has provided the OFT market study with important input by highlighting problems in the property services sector, and I commend the institute on its valuable work.
As my hon. Friend said, the report led directly to the private Member's Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Blaby. The Bill calls for a ban on cold calling to offer property repairs and maintenance. We are all looking forward to its Second Reading on 12 March. I have had two useful discussions with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill and its aims. I have not yet seen it in its published form and it would, in any case, be inappropriate for me to comment on it before Second Reading. However, the Office of Fair Trading expects to make public both its position on a cold-calling ban and its full market study report in anticipation of next week's debate. I cannot anticipate what those will say, but they will clearly help to inform the debate, and I welcome such action.
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend and his associates for their excellent work in focusing attention on the serious problems associated with some types of cold calling. I assure him that I am sympathetic to their aims. As the Minister with responsibility for consumers, I take all forms of rogue trading, and the detriment and distress that they cause, very seriously. The impact of such practices on consumers—not least vulnerable consumers—is unacceptable and we must make every effort to put the rogues out of business. The Government have shown a strong commitment to protecting consumers' interests. In keeping with that commitment, I can assure my hon. Friend that all the options for improving protections for consumers from bogus or exploitative cold callers will be carefully considered.
§ Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.