Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my amendment to Commons Amendment 2 deals with the issue of cold calling spoken to by the Minister a moment ago. Your Lordships will recall that as the Bill has progressed, we have discussed cold calling extensively. There was almost universal acknowledgement of widespread abuse, of invitation to commit fraud and of an unwarranted and all too frequent intrusion into people’s lives. I will not rehearse at this late stage all the details of the evils inflicted on us all, and particularly on the elderly and the vulnerable, by unscrupulous cold calling. The House clearly recognised an omnipresent when it saw one: we voted decisively to address the problem via this Bill In the Bill we sent to the Commons, we included, as the Minister has said, a provision to oblige the SFGB to, "have regard to the effect of cold-calling on consumer protection", and to, "make and publish an annual assessment of any consumer detriment" We also required the SFGB, where it found consumer detriment, to advise the Secretary of State, "to institute bans on … cold-calling and the commercial use of any data obtained by … cold-calling" The Bill now comes back to us slightly modified and in many ways improved, but in one critical way, significantly weakened. Amendment 2(7)(b) requires the SFGB, "to consider the effect of unsolicited direct marketing on consumers of financial products and services, and … from time to time to publish an assessment of whether unsolicited direct marketing is, or may be, having a detrimental effect on consumers" The final part of the Government’s amendment obliges the SFGB to advise the Secretary of State to "make regulations" to remedy any defect There are two very significant differences between this and the original formulation. The latter cut off the revenue chain for cold callers operating from outside the UK by banning the use of data obtained unlawfully. This is absent from Amendment 2. I will return to this issue later when I discuss Government Amendment 10 and, in passing, Amendment 21. Here, I want only to deal with the Government’s use of the words "from time to time"—words which the Minister herself has highlighted. The full text states that the SFGB, "from time to time … publish an assessment of whether unsolicited direct marketing is, or may be, having a detrimental effect on consumers" The question here is: what is the force of the phrase "from time to time"? What obligation does it really put upon the SFGB? What would count as "from time to time"? For example, would once in five years satisfy? Would once every 10 years satisfy? This is an extremely weak requirement, so vague as to have no force at all. The phrase "from time to time" does not in practice place any definable obligation on the SFGB. This is not only unsatisfactory; it is also not what this House voted for. We voted for an annual assessment There may of course be arguments—the Minister has deployed some of them—against annual assessments: for example, that, in its first year of existence, the SFGB may well have other very urgent priorities. I understand that, and that is why my proposed amendment simply adds the words, "and not less than once every two years" This seems to me a moderate response that is necessary to prevent a vital part of our agreed curbs on cold calling being rendered ineffective by Amendment 2. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response The Minister told us several times during the Bill’s progress through our House—with real passion—that she abhorred cold calling. I hope that she can find a way to reassure us that the Government’s proposed amendment does in fact have meaning and force. Of course, she could do that by accepting Amendment 2A.