Financial Services Bill

Neil Parish Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I do not believe that it has yet been confirmed that they will include the power to suspend a company. I would like the Minister to address that. If the FCA has that power and has the resources to act, that would help in cases where the company is breaking all the voluntary codes—it has been proved again that a voluntary code is not working. Again, however, consumers do not look to see whether such companies are regulated; they just need the money. They simply go to the nearest company—possibly the one at the top of the internet or possibly the person or company that sends them an unsolicited text. Consumers do not shop around for such loans.

Consumers need a robust regulator, and although I welcome the move from the OFT to the FCA in new clause 4, the Government need to clarify what that means for consumer protection. There needs to be a robust deterrent for firms entering the market. The bar needs to be set much higher. There also needs to be a real deterrent. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the £50,000 limit did not apply and that there could be an unlimited fine, because I believe that £50,000 will quite often be written into the business plan as a write-off. There needs to be the power and, as importantly, the resources to supervise and to stop bad practice at an early stage. Two years down the line is too late for the innocent people who have walked into the trap. We need a real consumer champion. As Which? has often said, what we want is a watchdog, not a lapdog.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her amendment 40, because payday loans and doorstep lending are a huge problem. There are many loan sharks out there and they need to be put back in their boxes. We need serious financial health warnings about their conduct, so that our constituents have some idea of how much they are borrowing and how much they will have to repay. For instance, anyone borrowing £100 at 2000% will have to pay back up to £2,000. That needs to be clearly laid out when people are taking out such loans. As has been pointed out, APRs—annual percentage rates—are not always understood by our constituents. Therefore, if they could see exactly what they had to repay, they would be much less likely to take out such loans.

[Lorely Burt]

The point of payday lending is that it should be for a very short period. Such issues arise when there are innumerable roll-overs, as outlined by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). What we hope the industry will do and the review will achieve is either to confine roll-overs to a small number or to abolish them altogether, which would address the problem of the £2,000, which no one in this Chamber wants to see.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It needs to be clearly set out when people take out a loan that such sums could be the result if they are unable to repay it. Let us consider the analogy of tobacco. We no longer allow tobacco advertising, and shops cannot even display packets of cigarettes any more, yet people can ring up Wonga on their mobile phone and take out a loan for which they will be charged 4,214% interest.

[Stella Creasy]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although limiting the number of roll-overs is certainly a step in the right direction, there is a risk that it could result in what has happened in America, where such a limit has led to firms paying off someone’s loan and starting a new one in order to circumvent the regulation? We need a regulation with clear, explicit powers to act in relation to these companies in a way that they cannot shrink away from.

[Neil Parish]

That is absolutely right. Many of the people taking out these loans earn less than £15,500 a year and therefore cannot afford the loan in the first place. I have sympathy for their position, but are we really helping them by allowing them to get into the hands of loan sharks, which results in their having to pay back huge amounts of money that they simply do not have?

I have made the point before that if financial companies and loan sharks are arguing that they need to charge huge amounts of interest because people are such a high security risk, they should not be lending them the money in the first place. Let us remember the old adage about finance: these companies will lend us an umbrella when the sun is shining, but they will take it away again as soon as it starts to rain. In the circumstances that we are describing, they should never have made the loans in the first place. Citizens Advice and financial advisers often tell us about people who have got themselves into huge amounts of debt, perhaps through no fault of their own.

It needs to be made absolutely clear to people what to expect. I am not a great believer in huge amounts of regulation, but I do believe that the consumer should be able to see exactly what they are signing up to at the outset, and be made fully aware of the consequences of their actions. They often do not understand the terms if they are hidden in the small print or expressed as complicated percentages, but if they were told, “You can borrow £100, but if you don’t pay it back on time, you could end up paying £2,000 back”, it might make them sit up and think about exactly what they were borrowing. They might then choose not to do it, or to go to someone who could lend them the money at a better rate.

The Government are doing a great deal to increase the use of credit unions, and we need to do much more work on that. Perhaps we should look into ways of financing them. I have a very successful one in my constituency, and we need to build on that. Only a small percentage of people here borrow money from credit unions, unlike in Ireland, where almost 50% of people have access to such loans.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned Wonga, and he was right to suggest that 4,000% is an absurd rate of interest. Does he have a view on the rate at which interest should be capped for a fortnight’s payday loan?

[Neil Parish]

Yes, I do. Many people in the banking sector would probably disagree, but I believe that anything over 50% is far too high. It is obscene and immoral to allow companies to go on charging vast amounts of interest—I do not care who they are—and that is why we have to take action. I am looking to the Government to do so, not only through legislation but through stating that such companies should clearly set out their rates of interest and the consequences of non-repayment, so that our constituents can take advantage of credit that is competitive and that will not ruin them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

In speaking to the new clauses and amendments in this group, the Minister appeared to say that many of them were unnecessary because the issues would be dealt with through the setting up of the Financial Conduct Authority. However, it is our role as parliamentarians to take up these issues, to state explicitly that we need to give political guidance on the matters that our constituents find important, and to discuss the work that needs to be done by the FCA. There is no reason why these measures should not be incorporated into the Bill. That is surely better than waiting for four or five years, only to discover that the problems have not been addressed because the means of doing so had not been set out as clearly as they might have been. I hope that the Government will therefore reconsider their position on this.

I am surprised at the way in which the Minister dealt with amendment 55. His objection to its proposals on legal aid and legal advice seemed to be that they would undermine the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Perhaps I have got this wrong, but I had understood that the justification for restricting legal aid was a financial one. We have been given the usual argument that the country is in a financial mess, we have a deficit and we have to save money on the legal aid bill, among many other things. It is therefore disappointing, when someone comes up with another way of financing legal advice for complicated cases, that that is not acceptable either. The Government therefore seem to be suggesting that granting legal aid in such cases is, in itself, a bad thing.

After all, we are not stopping litigation, and we are not preventing people with plenty of money from litigating on any issues. The ending of legal aid will simply result in considerable detriment for people who do not have the money to pay for their legal advice. It is regrettable to say that the proposals would somehow undermine the Government’s intentions. When we were debating the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, various speakers on the Government Benches said, “We would like to do these things, if we had a way of funding them.” They were not saying, “We really do not want to do these things at all.” They seemed to be saying that the measures were being brought in with some sadness, so when someone comes up with a partial solution, it is a shame that we cannot investigate it further.

Amendment 37 seeks to make it explicit that the work of the Money Advice Service should be to help those with the greatest problems who are suffering particular difficulties as a result of financial exclusion. The previous Government tried to address those problems through various formats. The present Government are suggesting that this will be done anyway, and that the service will be the same for everybody. However, that assumes that everyone is starting off on the same footing, which is not the case. Many people have limited choices and are therefore more likely to get into financial difficulties. The Money Advice Service should be giving those people a specific amount of its attention, and to spell that out in the Bill would not be unreasonable.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said about the phasing out of debt management companies. We are not saying that such companies that operate on a commercial basis should disappear. The amendment suggests that it should not be the individual consumer who pays the up-front price for those services. There are alternatives, and some commercial companies could continue to operate if the financial organisations were to foot the bill. We shall be seeking to achieve that.

Finally, I want to say how important it has been that people have campaigned on these issues; for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has campaigned hard on debt management companies, while my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has campaigned on high-cost credit. We are now some considerable time on from when we had a big debate in this place, with many Members attending and speaking on these issues, yet we are so little further forward.

If we look at the wording of amendment 40, it makes no specific pitch for a particular cap or how exactly to achieve the aim; it simply asks the FCA to make the rule. Further discussion and consultation will be necessary about what those rules should be, but the amendment asks the FCA to make this an important and early part of the work it does. I do not view that as at all unreasonable.

The alternatives proposed are not good enough. Financial education is fine, but when facing a difficult situation, no amount of financial education is good enough when there is so little choice. Sometimes regulation and financial education are proposed as alternatives, but I do not think they are. It would be great if people were better financially educated, but in a tight spot, that is not enough.