My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch: Amendments 209 to 211 and 215.
It is estimated that a staggering 134 million personal injury compensation calls and texts have been made and sent in the UK in the past 12 months. YouGov research shows that more than 20 million people were contacted by companies touting for business through injury compensation claims. Personally, I have had more than my fair share, so I suppose I must declare an interest in this issue.
However, unsolicited calls are more than just a modern-day nuisance. If people have suffered an accident, they can be reminded of the trauma. People’s hopes of compensation can be raised cynically and unrealistically in order to encourage them to share personal financial information that can then be used to scam them out of their money. Research shows strong emotional responses to these calls. People are left feeling angry, anxious, disgusted and upset. That is hardly a surprise when they are being pestered in their own homes or on their own phones.
4.30 pm
Some 89% of people surveyed want a total ban on such calls. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which campaigns on behalf of people injured by negligence, also wants the Government to ban cold calls encouraging personal injury claims. It knows that such practices are exploitative and intrusive, and that they often prey on the elderly and vulnerable. In fact, these calls are rarely, if ever, based on whether a person might have a genuine claim. Solicitors are banned from cold calling for personal injury claims but claims management companies are still allowed to contact people. For them, it is simply a numbers game, and it is made possible and cheap by modern communications technology.
The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 set up rules relating to unsolicited electronic marketing for messages sent by fax, telephone, email or text—we do not have to worry about unsolicited faxes now because they are not around any more, but that indicates that our current
legislation is somewhat out of date. That is what Amendment 208A seeks to rectify. It would facilitate an outright ban on these calls and would allow claims management companies to contact people about personal injury claims only if they had specifically requested such contact. I hope that the Government will support it.
On Amendments 211 and 215 to Clause 116, while Labour supports the Government’s ambitions to tackle nuisance calls, we believe that establishing a duty to notify the ICO of unlawful direct marketing does not engage reasonably with the practical realities of telecoms companies, or the technology available to them, in fulfilling their obligations. These amendments would remove some of their get-out-of-jail-free cards—some potential excuses that operators could use to avoid making any substantial efforts to change the status quo and reduce nuisance calls.
Amendment 211 clarifies that intercepting or examining the content of any communication is not required in order to comply with the duty to inform the commissioner. Amendment 215 would ensure that appropriate guidance was in place within six months so that everyone was aware of them; hopefully, that would tighten the rules of the game. If the Minister is not inclined to accept Amendment 215, perhaps he could tell the Committee what engagement the Government have been undertaking with interested parties since the Bill passed its Commons stages.
On this matter in particular, I am more than happy to receive the Minister’s response in the Room, by telephone call or by text, but not by fax. I beg to move.