Debt Collection (Consumer Credit Act)

No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there is not enough time. Perhaps he will be able to intervene in a minute. Although recovery department staff were Lloyds's employees, they tried to imply that they were part of a firm of solicitors by the name of Sechiari Clark and Mitchell. That, of course, was quite false. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he has read the article in The Sunday Times, as I have been able to give only a summary of it in the few minutes available this evening. The programme "You and Yours" showed the extent, scale and gravity of the callous and dilatory nature of debt collection in this country. I know that the Minister listened to the programme, and I hope that he has been able to consider the follow-up programmes. For instance, one lady described how the Bank of Scotland had constantly bombarded her and her terminally ill husband with insensitive automated phone calls. Another person, Marian Parks, described how the same bank's actions had impacted on her father, John Leather, and set out all the problems that arose as a result. To their credit, her family was so incensed that they entered into litigation before Mr. Recorder Grice at the Truro county court, where the matter was determined on 23, 24 and 25 February. It is interesting that Mr. Recorder Grice described the so-called Triad system, which involves constant automated telephone calls to alleged debtors, as""a juggernaut which cannot be stopped very easily"." He went on to say that""the Bank of Scotland comes at you from all sides"," and that the Bank of Scotland's explanation""would be farcical had it not been so stressful."" He described how use of the Triad automated telephone system went on and on. He said that there were certainly grounds for "criticism" of the Bank of Scotland and its "inflexible system", adding:""what I find really disturbing is the complete absence of a personal safety net...I think the Bank of Scotland should be subject to significant criticism"." Also in the bundle of documents presented to the court was the "advanced call skill read-ahead package" for staff who work in the bank's recovery system. It tells them to use the following threats:""keep your car…protect your credit rating…be able to get future credit…prevent legal action"." It suggests "borrowing from…relatives" and asking:""Is your husband/wife employed?"" and so on. All that, of course, is against the spirit of the OFT code and the banking code. The radio programme to which I referred also demonstrated the courage of a Mr. John Cooper, who took on the communications company 3, which I have already mentioned. He had purchased, some time ago, phones for his daughters, but they did not work in his area. He cancelled his direct debit. It would appear that that alleged debt was sold to a company called HFO Services, which persisted, menacingly, in trying to get him to cough up some money, to the extent that his daughter was fearful that its representatives would seize property in the home. I heard on the radio—I think that the Minister will have done so, too—a recording of a telephone conversation in which a representative from HFO Services, speaking from a call centre in Asia, said:""Despite leaving several messages on your answer machine and despite trying to get in touch with you, you have failed to respond back. Now if I don't receive your call today I would go ahead and forward the"—" there followed an indistinct word—""to Northampton County Court so that there would be a county court judgement issued against you. And it might be also the court appointed bailiffs. If you want to save yourself some legal hassles please call me back."" That is completely and utterly contrary to the codes. Of course, the company was exposed by the BBC. In a feeble statement, the outfit called HFO Services said:""HFO views any alleged breach of the OFT guidelines or applicable legislation as a matter of the utmost seriousness."" It would say that, wouldn't it? That does not impress me. It tried to give an excuse and pretended that it would have an investigation. I have to say that the director of that company knows what is going on in his call centre. If he does not, he should, and anyway, he is culpable. I have referred to the guidelines, and I will place a copy in the Library. They are self-explanatory and common sense, but they are wholly inadequate. They need to be beefed-up. They were last reviewed in 2003. They do not take into account the automated dialling menacing system, through which the menacing goes on and on. Both the guidelines and the judgment of the recorder to whom I referred need the attention of the House. The brave people who took the matter to court suffered constant harassment by means of automated telephone calls and so on, but found that that did not constitute harassment in law. We need a lower threshold for the term "harassment" and/or to find an alternative offence to protect and promote the interests of vulnerable people. We should also enable the OFT to order a stop notice that suspends debt collection activities if it becomes aware of a case in which, prima facie, there is a breach of guidelines and/or clearly a dispute about whether a debt exists. That is what is required. Since I appeared on the programme "You and Yours", I have been overwhelmed by heart-rending cases. The MBNA bank has been pressing people. Bank after bank, institution after institution have been overbearing in the way in which they have approached decent people. E.ON used Advantis Credit Ltd in a disgraceful episode in terms of the manner in which its staff approached people who were alleged debtors. I shall gladly give way briefly to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech), who has been very helpful.