Debt Advice and Debt Management

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of debt advice and debt management services.

It is a special privilege for me to open this debate this afternoon—a debate called for by Members from across the House. Although we may have many differences, when it comes to debt advice and debt management services, we share a real concern for ordinary people, including some of the most vulnerable in our society who, often through no fault of their own, find themselves in crisis. Many see that crisis deepen because they do not know where to turn when they fall victim to unscrupulous practices that I am sure we would all unite in condemning.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and to the Committee members for providing us with the time to discuss the issues on the Floor of the House today.

The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills is currently undertaking an inquiry into this very matter, so I believe this debate will add value to the work being done, particularly regarding the scandalous actions of a large number of debt management companies.

Debt seems to have permeated every part of our society in the 21st century. Households are in debt; students are in debt; the Government are in debt; even premiership football clubs are in debt. Debt seems simply like a fact of life for many. Something tells me, however, that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor Malcolm Glazer are subject to aggressive cold calling, excessive fees and misleading advertising by debt management companies from which many of the most vulnerable people in debt suffer. A report commissioned by the Consumer Credit Counselling Service found that 6.2 million people are financially vulnerable—in other words, they have no money left in the bank at the end of the month—and many more are on the brink. More startling is the fact that younger Britons are getting into more debt earlier in life. More than a million households in the 18 to 39 age group are already struggling to cope, with a further 893,000 at risk.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the cuts to the Money Advice Service just now and how detrimental they will be to the money advice that can be given to young people?

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly am, and I am going to deal with the issue later. I understand that a considerable number of this body’s staff are to be cut, which is bound to have a tremendous knock-on effect for services across the piece, not just those for young people.

Insolvency is also on the increase. Earlier this year, it emerged that 135,000 people were declared insolvent in England and Wales in the previous 12 months—the highest figure since 1960.

It should also be emphasised that it is the legacy of debt that is the real concern. There was a huge rise in consumer debt from the 1980s until 2007, and although consumer spending has reduced in the last few years, the debt remains, accumulating vast amounts of interest as time goes by. Contrary to what some may think, such debt is not predominantly due to reckless overspending. According to figures from the University of Nottingham, 50% of debt problems can be attributed simply to changes in individual circumstances, particularly unemployment or a drop in wages—something that is not too uncommon in the present grim economic climate.

I know that it would be easy to start outlining why even more people will need help in the coming years as a result of the Government’s policies, but I believe that the purpose of the debate is to concentrate on how we can best help the victims. If we are to help people, we need to retain and enhance the right services and ensure that there is appropriate regulation. Tackling debt head-on can have far-reaching benefits. One pound spent on debt advice saves £2.98 in future spending. A report from the Centre for Social Justice, published in October and entitled “Completing the revolution: Transforming mental health and tackling poverty”, estimated that debt advice could save about £30 million for the national health service, £50 million in legal costs and £220 million in productivity gains, as well as providing other benefits such as debt repayments to creditors.

I am proud of the good work that the Labour Government did in helping those in debt. Since 2005 the financial inclusion fund has done tremendous work, focusing on the most vulnerable members of society and providing free advice for anyone who needs it. I was relieved when, despite the current Government’s initial decision not to maintain the fund, it was announced in February this year that £27 million would be made available so that free face-to-face debt advice could continue to be funded during the coming year. Now I am concerned about future provision, and especially about the possibility that local government—which is also under a considerable financial constraint—will be required to do more in this regard and Government cash will dry up.

The Money Advice Service, set up by the Government to co-ordinate debt advice, is evidently a new body still trying to find its feet, but we desperately need a clarification of its role. For example, if it aims to co-ordinate debt advice, does that include fee-charging services? I hope that the Minister will publish the whole business plan for the service, particularly as I understand that—as was suggested earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks)—staff numbers are to be cut dramatically.

We must also maintain the excellent practice that exists in our constituencies. In my own constituency the Cabin, part of the Stockton district advice and information service, provides targeted advice for young people. It depends on grants to survive, and I was pleased to learn that the lottery was helping to fund it, but that type of funding is extremely limited, and it will run out.

One young person who was dealt with by the Cabin had approached a fee-charging money management company. According to its assessment, he would be able to pay £100 per month, of which £29.50 was a monthly administration fee. He tried his best to keep up the monthly payments, but knew that he could not really afford them in the first place. He visited the Cabin, which arranged a debt relief order for him, basing his monthly contribution on his current circumstances. He was then able to put his life back on track.

The Cabin’s manager, Janine Browne, is worried about young people finding their way to the very kind of organisation that we want them to avoid. She told me:

“We find the majority of debt collection agencies are very aggressive and if young people cannot access appropriate advice and support they will try other avenues which may not be effective or necessarily appropriate to their circumstances. Without support they bow to pressure.”

What is happening with debt management companies? In 2010-11, the Citizens Advice service in England and Wales dealt with 3,155 complaints about debt management services, 5% more than in the previous year. The key complaints were about poor advice, poor service, excessive charging, cold calling, and up-front fees for services that did not materialise. Most debt firms that have been audited have also failed to comply with guidance from the Office of Fair Trading in several respects, the main problem being misleading advertising that represents their services as being free when they are not. Through up-front fees, the companies take their clients’ cash for themselves first and their creditors second, leaving people disheartened by the lack of progress in dealing with their debts. What can we do?

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Free debt advice is currently widely available and easily accessed. How will he protect and promote those services? The current system of self-regulation is failing. How will he enhance it? Will he ban cold-calling canvassing for new business and the upfront fees? Will he introduce tougher licensing and a requirement for firms to make clear their fees on any advertising and on initially meeting clients?

[Gordon Banks]

My hon. Friend is giving the Minister a Christmas list—and the Minister will recall that this time last year we were addressing the Postal Services Bill, which caused much amusement. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should pay particular attention to the powers of the Office of Fair Trading? Where it has evidence of wrongdoing, it must be able to act quickly to suspend the licences of companies, rather than cases being dragged out for up to four years in the courts before the OFT can finally take action.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend steals my final point. He will find out in a few moments that I entirely agree with what he says. What I do know, however, is that some Christmas list requests will not be fulfilled this year because of the levels of debt people are facing.

What work does the Minister have planned with search engines such as Google on finding ways to help people in need find the free services that are available to them, rather than the unscrupulous merchants? Will he provide the OFT with the power to investigate ruthless companies and shut them down early, rather than that sometimes taking more than two years, during which time the companies still operate, make a profit and charge vulnerable customers? I look forward to the Minister telling us what is to be done.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, I raised the issue of the disgusting and disgraceful comments made by Jeremy Clarkson last night. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) directly asked the Secretary of State to address the issue in his closing remarks, but he failed to do so. Is that in order?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

This has been a fascinating debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on managing to secure it now, in a week when we have learned from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others that real disposable incomes for most people in Britain will not rise much in the next few years.

We all know, through our own experiences and those of the people we represent, the extent to which unavoidable costs such as filling one’s car, paying a heating bill or doing the weekly shop are going up. As a result, I fear that many more people will find that the sums just do not add up at the end of every week or month and that they cannot pay every bill on time. It is particularly important therefore that we anticipate now, in the next few months, the rising demand for debt management advice and work out how to protect the people who need to call on that advice.

Many hon. Members are great experts on aspects of this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is a great expert on credit unions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) is a great expert on financial advice and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) seems to be a great expert on everything to do with financial understanding. My interest in this subject comes from my constituency. I am lucky enough to represent the 750 people who work for Payplan in Grantham, which is an extraordinary business. It is important to understand that it is a business—a very valuable business—that does very well at making money. It does so by providing free debt management advice to troubled debtors and taking a fair share of contributions from creditors.

Payplan has demonstrated, along with the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and a few others, that it is an entirely commercial proposition to offer people advice based on the contributions received from creditors. It absolutely is not necessary to charge consumers for that advice in order to build a valuable business and make decent and respectable profits. Payplan is a partner of the Money Advice Trust and works closely with Citizens Advice and the National Debtline. I have run small businesses and I have many friends and colleagues who work in businesses, and I have not come across a business that makes as much money as Payplan does by doing as much good, so I am immensely proud to represent it and its employees.

The key question I want to address is the one at the heart of the debt management advice industry: what is the right economic model for that industry and should we be willing to intervene as a Government to change or specify that model? I go along with a view put forward by other hon. Members, particularly by those on the Government side, although my Lincolnshire colleague the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) also seemed to be of the same view. I am innately—I do not require the hon. Gentleman to go along with this—an economic liberal, like the Minister. I start off being sceptical of state intervention and I require that people demonstrate to me that a market failure is both obvious and substantial. I was therefore very happy, when a number of us met the Minister to discuss these issues a few months ago, to take his suggestion and look at whether there was a non-regulatory way of trying to fix the problem of cowboy companies gouging vulnerable debtors with huge fees up front and failing to fix their fundamental, underlying problem.

I was happy to look at whether there were alternative ways of dealing with the problem, and I set up a meeting with the excellent people who work in what has become known as the nudge unit at No. 10 Downing street. They are some of the most terrifyingly clever people one could hope to come across, and they are advised by one of the two authors of the original book, “Nudge”, who advise the Government on this issue. At the end of an hour in Portcullis house during which I fuelled them copiously with coffee because I knew that I would be able to make no other contribution to their deliberations, they reluctantly concluded—I think they were genuinely reluctant—that there was no obvious way of nudging this category of consumers.

Hon. Members have talked about the consumers in question, and about their state of mind and character. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described them, and while he was doing so I realised that he could have been describing me. There was the tendency to respond to advertising, and the unwillingness to open letters. Certainly, we Members of Parliament all feel, when we get personal letters, that we have had enough letters in the week. He missed out one vital element that certainly describes me: the total brain-freeze that seizes a person whenever they have to consider their personal finances. Last year, on my election to the House, I forced myself, for the first time, to draw up a budget for the year, and it is not a process that I intend to repeat soon.

We can all understand that for a person on a much lower income than any of us in the Chamber, and for a person whose costs were much more unforgiving than ours, it would be much more difficult to make a purely rational decision. They would be much less likely to ask themselves, “How is it that these people are able to do all this for free? Where will they send that money in the first few months? How quickly will my debts go down, and will they go down as quickly as they would if I went to another provider?”. It is simply unrealistic to expect consumers of that kind, in that situation, to go through the right process of questioning.

Is there a way of making sure that those consumers are at least fully aware of, and given all the required information about, the alternatives on offer? People have talked about Google, and requiring companies that charge consumers to mention the free advice systems. The difficulty is that there is almost no nudge that will overwhelm the advertising that could be funded by the huge fees that companies get. Even Google—a company that I admire greatly, and that is generally very keen to be socially responsible—will find it hard, on its own, to overwhelm the marketing brilliance of commercial operations that have a certain ruthlessness in their approach. As a result, I—and, more importantly, the nudge unit at No. 10—reluctantly concluded that there was no nudge available that would do the job.

As an economic liberal, I then forced myself to go to the next stage, and ask: is this market failure substantial, and is it obvious? I think that the answer is yes on both counts. It is substantial because the disparity between the information available to the consumer and the information available to the person selling to them is great. There are all sorts of areas where all of us, across the House, accept that that is the case, and that regulation is therefore necessary.

We believe, by and large, that it is important for consumers to know up front that cars have certain safety mechanisms in them, because most of us are not sufficiently well versed in checking for ourselves whether a car’s brakes fulfil the standards. We have myriad building regulations because we do not believe that consumers building, buying or moving into houses have any possibility of second-guessing whether the plumbing system will work, or blow up beneath them. We do the same with boilers, and with health care: we expect and require anybody providing laser eye surgery, or any other kind of operation, to be subject to specific regulations, because consumers cannot possibly second-guess whether those products are being provided safely. I would argue that the same applies to the consumers, and the product, that we are talking about.

We reached that conclusion a number of years ago in relation to other financial services. We decided that it was essential to regulate the fees that could be charged by independent financial advisers offering people mortgage, pension or endowment policies and products, for very similar reasons—we did not think that consumers would have the ability or information to assess whether fees were fair. Financial products are innately complicated, and we long ago concluded that consumers needed to be protected from the sharp practices of some providers.

What should the Government do? In the debate, two approaches have been proposed. The reluctance to regulate in a crude way is so deeply instilled in Government Members that they have proposed audits and restrictions on the percentage of fees that can be charged up front, on cold calls and on the worst practices of debt management companies that charge consumer fees. Listening to the debate—and I have genuinely changed my view slightly during it—I have come to the conclusion that going down that route would require enormous expenditure on regulation and enforcement. If we had to enforce measures on cold calls and on auditing everyone, as well as measures on the exact proportion of the fee taken from the repayment in a number of months, that would require such huge expenditure in the Office of Fair Trading that I fear it would be unrealistic.

I have concluded—no doubt the Minister will change my views yet again—that there is a simpler approach. We should take that spectacularly successful commercial model—fair-shares funding by creditors—and make it compulsory for any debt management company to make its money in that way.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman. Does he really believe that cold calling should still be allowed?

[Nick Boles]

I do not. I think that cold calling is a terrible idea, but I have good news for the hon. Gentleman: cold calling will die out automatically if all debt management companies follow the fair-shares model. There is not sufficient revenue available from the creditors to fund any of those dodgy marketing practices. That is why CCCS and Payplan do not indulge in those practices. To some extent, we are not here to save one commercial company and not another one, but they do not do so because their fair-share payments from the creditors do not make that possible. It is only because the fee-charging companies charge such huge up-front fees to consumers that they can afford to spend all that money to get them in in the first place.

The good news is that those bad practices would die out. On the other hand, we would have to do something else: we could not just require debt management companies to operate on that model. We would have to require creditors to make it available to all debt management companies, because none of us is in the business of somehow skewing the market towards one or two providers. We would have to require the creditors to offer that to any company that passed the basic regulatory requirements.

I understand that that would be a big step for any Government. The good news is that the legislation is already in place. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is already on the statute book. Part 5, which envisaged setting up regulations for debt management advice, has never been activated, because a commencement order has not been laid. My final suggestion to the Minister is that the Government should bite the bullet and lay that commencement order. They should introduce a simple regulation to enable strong, competitive and profitable commercial providers of debt management advice to flourish by offering advice funded by fair shares from creditors, thereby ensuring that the interests of some of the most vulnerable in our society at some of the most worrying times in their life are protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I, too, believe that we have had a good and measured debate this afternoon. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time to do this and to the many Members—there were quite a few of us—who supported the idea of having this debate.

Hon. Members have made it very clear that they have deep-founded concerns that the people who find themselves in crisis should get the help and support that they need. It was good to see how much we agreed on, though there was a little on which we disagreed as well.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the issues that hon. Members have raised this afternoon; he has much to address. He is one Minister who listens and responds positively. He has trailed for us in his response some things on the future funding of advice services and he has also talked about possible changes in the OFT’s approach to some of its powers and interventions, which is very welcome. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we look forward to it coming out of the oven.

I know that the Minister shares our tremendous concern for the victims of debt and debt management companies. I am pleased that he has taken on board all that has been said today. Perhaps one day he will welcome the end of the fee-charging companies that have caused so much damage.

Many hon. Members have outlined not just the anguish suffered by people who find themselves deep in debt, but the tremendous benefits to the individuals, to the families, to their health and to the economy of appropriate advice, action and protection. When the Minister leaves the Chamber today, I hope that he will talk to his officials, the charities and the other organisations about the solutions and that he will remember the strength of feeling across the House today. I hope that the debate will spur him on to ensure that we get early action to address all the issues that have been raised today. I look forward to seeing what will happen in the future because only the Government can deliver the action that we need.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of debt advice and debt management services.