 Je mwyn o szyb yn y cyrdullus. Diolch i chi i fynd i hyffost i'w 14 yn osgiel E 47 men. Felly roi iechyd i rundillach i ll appearing oul anhyf Terr empower diwrn y bym i網at rydych chi'n effektiaith. Mae ydy welding dros White ydwun y Llyfr Caslo Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, I thank the members across all parties who signed the motion, allowing me to bring this issue of nuisance calls to debate to the Parliament chamber this evening. I also thank the work that they have done in support of the consumer associations campaign, calling time on nuisance calls and texts. In many ways, this is a very timely debate coming on the day that we see the company home energy and lifestyle management find £200,000, a record fine from the ICO for their activity on nuisance calls. I find it quite staggering that a company can embark on an activity that involves 6 million unsolicited calls. It is no wonder that there was a high level of complaint from members of the public. It is quite clear that that kind of activity is completely unacceptable and that a lot of it can end up being focused on people who are pensioners, people who are vulnerable. I think that the job of this Parliament tonight is to unite, to pledge that there will be an action plan that will protect consumers, protect pensioners, protect vulnerable people and send out the message to companies who embark on these unscrupulous calling campaigns that their activity is unacceptable, it is not on and we will seek to root it out. I mentioned pensioners. One of the things that strikes me when you speak to people who have been the victim of such calls is that for pensioners, many of whom live on their own, the telephone is a very important device because they do not have a lot of personal company and they rely on the phone to get calls from their friends and from their family. I know that it is the case that pensioners, because of those nuisance calls, have become afraid to answer the phone and therefore are caught in a situation where they might not answer the phone and they might not get a call from a family member or they answer the phone and on the other end they get someone who is trying to take advantage of them and who has been intimidatory in the calls that they are making. We all know that there is a big issue across Scotland and constituencies in regions. What is at the heart of the activities of those companies is that they are seeking to gain money from people who have it on the other end of the phone. Some of it is through unscrupulous business activity and some are simply con-merchants and scamsters. People phone up saying that they are from the Windows technical team and that their computer is broken and that they immediately give them their credit guard details in order to stop the virus from moving through their computer or phoning people up saying that they are entitled to a free grant or a free payment. It is all about trying to extract bank card information so that they can then be used to unscrupulously take money off people. It is just totally unacceptable. In the scale of the problem there is no doubt that it is huge. It affects a billion of those calls that take place UK-wide. Eight out of ten people find them annoying. A third of people find them intimidating. That is the other thing. People on the other end of the phone can be very aggressive and very intimidating. It is just totally unacceptable. It is a big issue in my constituency of rather than canvas-lang in Blantyre. There are a lot of pensioners in that area and a lot of people have raised it with me as a real matter of concern. It is something that has grown in recent years. I think that the other thing about those companies is that some of them just treat the process and treat people with absolute contempt. The Sunday Post on Sunday revealed that there had been £1.4 million in fines handed out in terms of the unacceptable activity, but more than £1 million of that had not actually been paid at that point. More has to be done to not only ensure that companies realise that that is not on, but to rake in and take back in payments for fines. Some of the contempt is just totally unacceptable. One company featured in the Sunday Post cold call elimination who had been fined £75,000 were phoning up pretending to be from the Government or from British Telecom. That is just totally unacceptable to people. What I would like to see from the Minister and the Government is the publication of an action plan to tackle nuisance calls. At the forefront, it should set out that those calls and unscrupulous activity are completely unacceptable. I think that there is more to be done to ensure that companies take the issue more seriously, that they have a board-level director that takes responsibility for calls. We need to focus on the issue of data and people's rights. A lot of the way that people are able to make these calls is the way that they gather data from other sources, email sources or financial transactions, and people need to be better advised as to the rights in terms of passing data across. The Government itself can look at its own procurement processes so that it is involved in farming out any calling activity. It can ensure that it takes on companies that do it in a proper and acceptable manner. I am grateful to the member for taking intervention. I would like to highlight in relation to the particular example that has been used today that the Scottish Government was not responsible for the companies' activities and we were not responsible for that particular case, but I take the point in general on the board. I accept that point, Mr Wheelhouse. I was careful not to make any link between the Scottish Government and the company that was mentioned today. I am well aware that that is not a company that the Scottish Government uses in terms of the Green Deal. More has to be done in working with telephone providers so that call or line identification can be provided and the telephone preference service can be made better use of. All this can be rolled up into a public information campaign. In summing up, there will be a lot of agreement across the chamber and a lot of concern about the activities of companies that embark on Newson's calling. We need to make it loud and clear that it is unacceptable. We need to expose the con merchants and the scamsters and we need to root them out so that we can protect those who are vulnerable, those who are pensioners in their communities and make sure that they are safe to use their phones in their own house. I congratulate James Kelly on securing this debate and for the passion that he showed in articulating his concerns on the subject. I signed Mr Kelly's motion literally within seconds of finding it in my inbox. It's arrival could not have been better trained. I just put the phone down on my 78-year-old mother, mum, who had been telling me about an unsociated call she'd fielded earlier that day. That call from a young man had offered a bargain deal on a system that he claimed would ensure that she'd never received cold calls again. She was told that she was getting a special offer because the area that she lives in just outside Aberdeen had been specifically targeted by these unscrupulous firms for the half-price rate of £2 a month for three years. She could be assured of no longer being subjected to nuisance calls. All she had to do was provide car details and the security number on the back of the car. When she told him she had no intention of providing such details, the individual concerned promptly hung up. Who knows how many folk may have fallen victims of this scam? As my mother rather amusingly put it, she has all her marbles, but there are some poor old deals out there. It was good to see across party support that this motion garnered, though perhaps not entirely surprising given that it was lodged during the summer recess when colleagues, if they were like me, were themselves being exposed to the full annoyance of the nuisance calling. There were days when I was at home over the summer when I felt under siege for these automatically generated calls, being in the parliamentary office of her little respite either, as it gets regular calls too. I'm wide to believe some of these automated calls when no one comes on the other end when you answer are actually probing in nature aimed at determining whether anyone is at home during the daytime, and therefore whether follow-up calls are likely to prove worthwhile. The unwarranted intrusion in people's lives, whoever they are, is frankly unacceptable. Perhaps I should at this stage declare a very personal interest in this subject, born of something that happened to my family a little under a year ago when the shameless nature of these companies would laid bare to us. Having just taken a call from the hospital, summoning us to my dad's bedside as his health was deteriorating rapidly, the phone went again. It was a gentleman phoning, I suspect, from India. Before I could stop him, he'd given me his name and advised. He was calling to discuss an issue that I was having with my computer. He was rather bluntly advised of how welcome his call was, that we were dealing with a family crisis, and he was not to call again. Fast forward a week, and as we were about to leave home for dad's funeral, the phone went again. It was not only the same scamming firm, but the very same individual. So, on behalf of myself, my family and many, many constituents, I offer my unreserved support to this switch campaign. This problem is not going away. A five or six-month period earlier this year, the information commissioner's office received more than 61,000 official complaints about Euston's calls or texts, and we're just one in 50 of people writing to bother with contacting the regulator, we can, I think, deduce that in reality there are millions of such calls being received. I'm grateful to which for providing sample comments from constituents who talk of the ignoring of TPS registration, receiving up to 20 of these calls a day, already challenging caring situations being impacted upon by this menace, and a fear that these calls are being used to determine whether the house may be empty. Presiding officer, as the constituency MSP represent these folk, I'm one of the eight out of 10 people who support greater accountability over Euston's calls, including directors of these companies being personally fined for rural breaches. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I now call on Liam McArthur to be followed by Christine Graham. Thank you very much, and can I start by apologising to you and to the chamber for the need to leave slightly earlier this evening, but congratulate James Kelly on securing this important debate, one which mirrors what I led myself three years ago on the same issue. However, as Graham Day has rightly said, this is a problem that's not going away, and therefore I think it's important that Parliament has a further opportunity to voice its strong and united support for the campaign to call time on Euston's calls and texts. This is an issue that affects people right across the country in a campaign that enjoys strong cross-party support, and I commend the consumer association and which for their tireless campaigning on the issue. They're right to argue for more action, but I think that they deserve credit for some of the progress that they've already achieved. I have one complaint about their briefing for this debate. It fails to acknowledge the pivotal role played by my former colleague Mike Crockart, who led the campaign at Westminster during the last parliamentary session. Indeed, Mike Crockart was instrumental encouraging which to take up this issue, and I know that both worked extremely well together in gathering support around £250,000 at last count and securing important changes. Credit 2, I think, is due to the Sunday post for championing this cause and for encouraging people both to share their experiences as well as to sign up for the campaign. This campaign has been successful. Since we previously debated the issue, the Information Commissioner's office now has increased powers to take enforcement action against firms making usins calls. That was something that members in the previous debate all called for, and I'm pleased that those calls were heeded by the previous UK coalition government. Under that change, the ICO no longer has to prove that calls are causing quote, substantial damage or substantial distress before taking action. I dare say that this change had a role to play in the ICO earlier today, handing out a fine of £200,000—the largest yet—was referred to by James Kelly. However, while progress has been made, more is undoubtedly needed, which is calling for legislation to be introduced to hold board-level executives to account for the actions of their company. At the very least, we need companies to take compliance with the law and consumer consent seriously at board level. BT and SSE are leading the way, and others must follow, and I think that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can play a part in encouraging others to do so. We also want to see call-a-line identification made mandatory for all marketing calls. Without that, it is hard to see how those bombarded by nuisance calls and texts will be able to report the company or make a request to be removed from their database. I think that that is imperative. Many of my constituents, such as those of other members, no doubt, have clearly found that the current telephone preference system is ineffective and therefore that additional safeguards are needed. I heard of one case earlier today where a friend was called by the British Government Grants Department in return for paying his taxes and maintaining good relations with the British Government. No mean feat for an ardent yes supporter, I would suggest. He was entitled to a grant of £1,800 when asked his age. My friend said that £123, at which point the line strangely went dead. Such calls are a nuisance, but describing them as such perhaps risks underestimating the effect that they can have, particularly on the vulnerable. One Orkney constituent described them as a personal assault. Last time, I highlighted the case of a constituent whose elderly mother, a dementia sufferer, had been repeatedly called and pressed into taking a broadband package. She finally relented and signed up for the expensive offer, despite not even having a computer. It took months to get her money back, but this case at least ended positively. Many, many more do not. Deputy Presiding Officer, if this was happening face to face, if payday loan sharks or PPI litigators were knocking on the doors of the elderly and the vulnerable in our communities, then either running away or bullying them into making claims would be up in arms. Just because the constant badgering and intimidation happens over the phone does not make it okay or any less frightening to vulnerable people, and yet that is the everyday reality for far too many. It can't continue, it must stop. Again, I thank James Kelly on allowing this debate to happen. I apologise to him, to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and the chamber for not being able to stay to the end. I congratulate which and wish them well on their on-going campaign to call an end to nuisance calls, and hope Mike Crocker feels a sense of justifiable pride in a very worthwhile campaign he helped to start. Thank you. I now call Christine Grahame to be followed by Nanette Milne. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I sincerely congratulate James Kelly on securing this debate and endorse everything that has been said so far, in particular regarding the harassment and bullying particularly of elderly and vulnerable people and the scams? There cannot be one of us who has not raged against those unsolicited calls. I really only had to suffer them when I was more likely to be at home during recess, but what other people put up with all the time goodness knows. You would just be stepping out of the shower weeding at the bottom of the garden or at the top of the stairs with your arms laden with ironing, then you would run to the phone, especially if you were waiting for a vital phone call to either find no one on the line or a sales pitch. It got to the stage where I simply didn't answer the phone and let the answer phone gather the Bonafidei messages. Indeed, my son used to say to me, why don't you pick up the phone mum? I said, because it's always these unsolicited calls. My late father was full of mischief, and he had his own way of dealing with those calls. He was in his 90s. He would settle down for a long meandering conversation with those people, and then, when he had enough, declared that he'd died here. Inevitably, the caller put down the phone. They're not to blame. They were just doing their job and probably the first-class degree in chemistry, but they always apologised profusely. I thought that this was entertaining, by the way, until he deployed the same excuse on me when he was fed up talking to me. That said, it's mainly elderly and housebound people who cannot escape this telephonic bombardment, so the campaign by which hits all the right buttons, and through which I have comments from my own constituents in Midlothian, and it's really what we all already know. I'm disabled and sometimes tripped trying to reach the phone before it goes to the answer machine. Normally, I ignore calls from numbers that I don't know, but recently, due to having to deal with care agencies for a family member, I have to answer my phone. When it's a nuisance call, it impuriates me. I'm a pensioner, and wages don't give up, even when you say that you're not interested. They probably redouble their efforts. I receive nuisance calls even at 8.30 on a Sunday morning. I want something done to stop them. Many older people I know get very worried and frightened by these calls and feel that they have to respond. I do things in my own hands. I've had enough, so I've installed my own solution. It's a BT phone. I'm not on product placement, so I'm not telling you what it is, but it's got a call-blocking device. It doesn't ring unless the caller identifies themselves and I have a list of callers who are automatically put through. If you're not on my list, I either accept if I'm in by pressing one or a message has to be left. If you want to get in touch with me, you'll have to get on my special list, but I'll tell you. I've not had another nuisance call and I am liberated. You're not in the position where you hear the phone ringing, you're waiting to hear from your family in Canada, or you're waiting to hear from the terrible circumstances that Graham Day has explained, and you rush to the phone and there's this person on the end who, as I say, is doing their job, it's a terrible job to do, and no matter how much you try to resist, you'll get calls again. I have no more nuisance calls. If you want to be on my list, come and speak to me. I recommend this to you all. It's not too expensive, but as I say, I'm not on product placement, I'm not getting ready to do this for BT as a false, but if you go on the internet, this is a sound solution. Thank you very much. I thank James Kelly for securing the debate on an issue that isn't just an irritant, but it can be an extremely stressful experience for vulnerable people. Often elderly people who may live on their own will feel disappointed when the phone rings and thinking that it may be a child or a grandchild on the line struggle to the phone to discover it's a cold caller trying to sell insurance of it ever. Even more irritating is the increased number of nuisance calls, which are automated voice recordings. I was off work for a few weeks recently suffering from a rather nasty attack of shingles, and anyone here who's experienced this debilitating condition will be aware of just how painful it can be and the lethargy which goes with it. During that time, our phone rang at least half a dozen times every day, the callers from companies or lobbyists trying to sell me something, and often those calls were automated with only silence on the end of the line. Having to get out of my chair to answer the phone or being wakened up from an exhausted sleep was not a pleasant experience. I assume those calls happen every day, even when I'm not at home, and I can imagine how irritating they must be to people who are housebound, frightening too when there's no voice on the other end. When I was returning to Parliament last week, still not feeling 100%, I got on to the 546 train from Aberdeen having been dropped off by my husband at the station. I had my luggage with me, but suddenly realised I'd left my handbag in the car, so I was stranded in the station with no phone, no money and no cards. The very helpful ScotRail staff phoned home for me and gave me a welcome cup of coffee, but my husband very nearly didn't respond because at that time of the morning he assumed it was probably a nuisance call. Fortunately, he did eventually get the message and returned my handbag in time for me to get the next train to Edinburgh and arrive at the health committee shortly after the start of the meeting. I mentioned those personal experiences to highlight the nature of how unsolicited telephone calls can affect people's everyday lives, and I'm grateful to Sarah Chisnell for working with which in providing me with comments from people in my north-east region, some 300 in total who have complained about these types of calls. Obviously, I don't have time to quote all the comments, but too stuck in my mind. I'm fed up with my 80-year-old parents being pestered by computer companies, accident claim companies, etc. They don't even own a computer but are constantly called by these people. My 83-year-old father is receiving at least six unsolicited calls a day, his phone is his lifeline, and he's now scared to answer it due to these cold callers. Like many other people, I've signed up to TPS, but this is consistently ignored, and I agree with my constituent who said that it's an invasion of privacy. We've opted into TPS and still get inundated with sales calls, including abusive scam computer calls from overseas. If I may digress for a moment, it's not just using calls which can be irritating. At home, we have a fax machine which can whirl away at 4am, offering products that we don't need, and waking us up in the process. To me, when the phone rings at that time of day, I immediately think that there must be some family emergency. I very much welcome the proactive calling time campaign by the Consumer Association, as cold calling has gone far too far. This week's action by the ICO, giving a £200 fine to home energy and lifestyle management limited for nuisance calls, is something that I hope will set an example to others. I'm not going to make any suggestions as to what the UK Government should or shouldn't do, but I do feel that businesses based in Scotland should be encouraged to implement best practice and make a voluntary commitment to tackling nuisance calls. Again, my thanks to James Kelly for sponsoring the debate. It's unquestionable that nuisance calls have increased in volume in recent years, with little oversight or accountability and more and more companies are using technology to create mass phone messages and unsolicited calls to individuals throughout the UK. Richard Lloyd, executive director of which described nuisance calls as a scourge on people's lives. Indeed, just before I left the office this evening, my assistant received a nuisance call on her mobile phone. Not only was it an automated message, but it was also a fraudulent call trying to scare her, warning that her payment protection insurance was at risk. I don't know if she's just read of similar scenarios from constituents. Fortunately, my assistant knew that this call was a scam and disregarded it. Unfortunately, however, many others may not be so up-to-date or aware of the latest tricks employed during those calls, and as colleagues have said, many of our more vulnerable constituents may not discern the potential harm. Indeed, some are at risk of having their personal information compromised and or stolen. Although fraudulent calls represent the most extreme cases and most calls are irritating, action must be taken to stop them from escalating further. It is said that six out of 10 householders say that nuisance calls are so bad that they no longer want to answer their own home telephone. It is sad that more than half of our constituents no longer want to answer their own phone for fear of unsolicited calls. It is time to hold unscrupulous businesses accountable before 10 out of 10 households no longer answer their phones. The Communications Act 2003 gave the officer of communications power to deal with the persistent misuse of a communications network service. Ofcom classified that misuse of communications includes a generation of unsolicited and unwanted calls and silent calls. Ofcom's research reported that, during a six-month period in 2012, almost half of all adults with a landline experienced a silent call, which is up a quarter since 2011. Over the same period, 71 per cent of landline customers said that they received a live marketing call and 63 per cent recorded marketing message. Currently, the information commissioner's office also enforces breaches of the privacy and electronic communications. In April 2013, top top was fined £3 quarters of a million for making around 9,000 abandoned or silent calls. Just yesterday, as James Kelly pointed out, the ICO fined the Green Energy Company home energy and lifestyle management limited to £100,000. Although I'm happy to say that some companies are being held accountable for their actions, those fines represent little compared to the action that still needs to be taken. Currently, a consumer can be taken off a calling list by including their number on the telephone preference service, but undeterred, as the net millman alluded to, companies have found loopholes to contact consumers and few penalties have been imposed on companies contacting those on the TPS list. One of my constituents advises me that she receives news and calls every day frequently from the same people, and Graham Day touched on that. On most occasions, there is no number available and no method of redress. Despite being registered by TPS, my constituent receives those calls incessantly, which has set out recommendations to introduce a mandatory caller line identification for all marketing calls to provide a key piece of information when reporting an unwanted caller or contacting a company to request removal from their database. Clearly, that would be a welcome step in the right direction. People may inadvertently give permission for unsolicited callers to contact them by ticking boxes on various websites. Sometimes, those tick boxes provide permission for companies to give information to third parties. To raise awareness, it would be beneficial if there was an industry standard for private notices. Further to that individual should have more rights and control over personal data, and it should be made easier for them to revoke their permission or consent to be contacted. There seems to be a lack of uniformity among news and calls, and our reluctance to punish those in the condition of the rules and practices that are already in place, and the witch campaign to create legislation that will make senior executives accountable for law of their company's news and calls would make companies less likely to breach guidelines. However, greater accountability, caller identification and more control over how personal data is used is badly needed to bring this problem under control, granting our constituents peace of mind. Thank you very much. I now call on Paul Martin, after which I move the closing speech from the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I like others. Congratulations, James Kelly, on highlighting an issue that has been raised by many of us. I say also to congratulate which and the Wrexley campaign on highlighting this issue to the parliamentarians. I think that all of us need to recognise the fact that we have not only been able to highlight the cases of our constituents, but also our personal experiences. I can say that I have been placed myself on a TPS register with the same results as others, and, indeed, following my commitment to TPS, I found that the calls increased as a result of that reference and committing to that process. I think that there are many challenges. In fact, if the industry does not wake up to some of the challenges that face people, people will go about disconnecting their landlines. If it was not for the fact that consumers require landlines for broadband access, many people would do that, because most people make use of mobile calls and may move towards that if, in fact, that cannot be taken forward. I know from personal experiences that I find the same as others have referred to, that answering telephone calls in the home has just been dealing with nuisance calls. I think that that is a challenge that faces, but can I highlight one particular case that was raised with me by Margaret and Jim Watson? Members will be maybe aware of Margaret and Jim Watson, who gave evidence to the Levison inquiry in connection with the sad loss of their son and daughter in respect to Diane and Alan. They raised a specific case with me in connection with the fact that Margaret was receiving over 80 calls a month from unsolicited organisations, so we are making unsolicited calls. That is an issue that she tried to raise with many of those companies directly. Margaret made a very good point to me on a number of occasions, which was how do you make complaints about those companies? What is the complaints process when the individual at the other end will not identify who the organisation is? That is why I think compulsory identification caller ID requires those companies to give that information crucial. I also do not think that the consumer should have to pay for that. I think that that is another challenge that Christine Grahame has set out a very effective way of dealing with those calls, but it requires investment to do that. Many consumers are not in a position to put in place those call barring systems, so I think that it should be up to the telephone providers to provide their service free of charge. I absolutely agree with you that I was in a position to do that, because I was just so sick to death of it, but I absolutely accept that it should not be what people have to do. I think that that is where the industry can take that forward. It needs to recognise that consumers will not be in a position to do that, and perhaps if it is the default position that you could have put in place, a call barring service for preventing those with unidentified numbers making contact with you, and a similar way in which Christine Grahame referred to screening, then perhaps we could move forward in that respect. I think that the industry does have to consider technological advances in looking at barring overseas calls, dealing with many of the challenges in that respect. I can also touch on the point that Kenny Gibson referred to the very fact that many of us will make use of those price comparison websites, and we will tick that box or untick that box at the bottom of that disclaimer. That has to be much clearer who that information will be provided to. I think that that is the challenge that faces many of us. When we ask those companies who provided information to them, usually it is a third party marketing company, and it is very difficult to find out who disclosed the information in the first place. We should put an action plan in place to deal with that very issue. In conclusion, I think that it is welcomed that Helms has seen a significant fine in place to deal with the Helms green energy company. We need to think about the fact that, should automated calls be considered an appropriate way of contacting people in any form, should we look at the possible ban of automated calls? I do not know anybody who wants an automated call. That is something that we have to consider whether that is an appropriate means of making contact with consumers. Perhaps that is a practice that should be considered in the future. In conclusion, we are all done to James Kelly in this debate, and I think that we can move forward, hopefully, in partnership with the Government with the appropriate action plan. Many thanks. I now call on Minister Paul Wheelhouse to close this debate on behalf of the Government in seven minutes, thereby, minister. I thank members who have already taken part in today's debate, particularly James Kelly, for initiating the debate and his work in recent months to highlight the issue of nuisance calls, which affects far too many people across Scotland. I would add myself to the list of people who have suffered the consequences of nuisance calls. Those calls and texts are, perhaps, an unwelcome annoyance for many. For me, that is the limit to the impact that they had on me, but we have to recognise, as many members have said today, that in many cases they can have a far greater impact on significant distress, particularly for the elderly and vulnerable. I think that it was the case that a number of members, James Kelly himself, mentioned first the isolation that many elderly and vulnerable people feel, how much worse it is when they feel that they cannot even pick up the phone and miss that vital family call from a family member. I think that people who are organising these calls really have to take a long, hard look at themselves as to the nature of the impact that they are having on vulnerable individuals. The contribution that Witch has made to promote the consumer agenda, as well as the excellent work that is carried out by its task force, only serves to highlight how important the issue remains. As a number of members have stated, eight out of every 10 consumer surveys say that they are regularly cold-called at home. Even more worryingly, as some have said, a third of those went on to suggest that the calls lead them feeling intimidated. If people are feeling intimidated by a sales call, that really is clearly unacceptable. Of course, regulation of nuisance calls in Texas is currently observed to the UK Government, although the new Scotland bill will devolve certain consumer and competition powers to the Scottish Parliament that will give us more of a chance to shape a more effective Scottish response to those consumer issues. I do not believe that the relevant clauses of the draft bill currently give full effect to the intention of the Smith agreement. However, we shall ensure that those further powers that come to Scotland are put to maximum effect. However, we should also continue to seek to ensure that provisions in the bill fully reflect the spirit and the letter of the Smith recommendations on consumer protection and competition policy. In this context, the consumer and competition policy working group is currently considering optimal arrangements for delivering consumer and competition services in Scotland under the bill. At the heart of our approach is the need to put the interests of consumers first. The Scottish Government will work in partnership with interested groups such as which to create an integrated consumer protection regime in Scotland that provides greater clarity on where to turn for help and advice. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the UK Government to ensure that the regime governing nuisance calls in Texas is made as effective as possible. The changes that the UK Government has proposed to legislation around enforcement will have an impact, and that will make it easier to impose fines on those companies that aggressively target consumers through unsolicited calls in Texas. I am sure that members across the chamber will be horrified by the experience that Graham Day experienced in a very tragic time, and that just stands to serve when the same individual calls back and can't take on board that he's contacted someone in an extremely distressing time and to leave them alone, and that tells us that we have a lot of work to do. However, the UK Government has also made a commitment to consult on mandatory calling line identification. A number of members, such as James Kelly, Kenneth Gibson, Paul Martin and Christine Graham raised that point, and I can not recommend any particular company or technology. It was interesting to hear that there are technologies available to cut out those numbers that do not have caller line identification. Under such a scheme, though, if mandatory calling line identification were to be extended, telemarketers would be required to display a valid telephone number and would not be permitted to withhold that number. However, we believe that the UK Government can go further and that it is in the process of reviewing a number of other recommendations that are made by which it is task force. It suggests that, giving regulators, noticeably the ICO, further powers to hold individual board members to account when their companies use consumers' personal data for marketing purposes. The task force also proposed a review of the UK Government's nuisance calls action plan to set out ways in which enforcement action could be made more effective. It suggested that the UK Government leads development of a cross-sector business awareness campaign to share best practice. Public authorities also support the take-up of accreditation schemes such as the telephone preference service. I have to stress my own experiences—I am registered with that—but I still get, unfortunately, a high volume of nuisance calls, as does Paul Martin indeed. That is a complex area and there are no instant solutions. However, the Scottish Government believes that far more can be done at the UK level to make regulation enforcement work more effectively for consumers, and we will work with the UK Government insofar as we have a role to make that happen. We believe that the UK Government should seek to work with industry to introduce a mandatory code of business practice. A clear expiry date on personal consent to third-party marketing should also be established. I think that that would help with the problem that Paul Martin and others have identified. It is also vital that the terminology used in consent boxes, as Kenneth Gibson referred to, which indicates that the consumer has or has not agreed to receive calls or texts, is clear, fair and fit for purpose. The Scottish Government also believes that the current UK-wide regulation of nuisance calls and texts is needlessly fragmented. The telephone preference service, the information commissioner's office and off-com all currently play a regulatory role. That fragmentation means that victims of nuisance calls and texts often face having to register their complaints with different organisations, depending on the exact nature of that complaint. In fact, it sets up a web portal to direct consumers to the relevant regulator. Data shows that only around half the people who used it went on to make a full complaint, suggesting that many people find the current complaints process to be too onerous, and we appreciate the work that all three organisations do to articulate good practice and to provide advice to businesses and the general public. The Scottish Government believes that there is still room for improvement, and that is why, in our consumer protection and representation in an independent Scotland options paper—I am not making this point for constitutional reasons—we did make a strong case for a single body that would have had responsibility for regulation of nuisance calls and texts. That would have allowed for more effective protection of the public than that provided under the current UK regulation, and nuisance calls can also lead to significant financial difficulties for consumers, particularly in the area of payday loans. We see too many cases in which unsolicited marketing calls from payday loan providers and debt management companies have resulted in a consumer's financial position being jeopardised, and the devolution of power to reduce the proliferation of establishments offering those services would also allow the Scottish Government to address concerns more effectively. Before I close, I just want to ask, perhaps given Christine Grahame's intervention, if I could be added to her specialist to make sure that that is the case. However, I note that, in dealing with some of the points that were raised by members, one thing that strikes me in community safety role is the thought that individuals perhaps would suffer trips or falls. If vulnerable people are trying to make it to a phone call, perhaps expecting a family member or waiting for an emergency call—indeed, if it is at an appropriate time of the day—might expect it to be a family member in distress, it could have an accidental fall on a trip, it could cause a house fire, it could cause obviously a long-term injury or, even as we know with hip fractures, it can be potentially fatal for very vulnerable individuals. Again, I urge the companies involved to look to their conscience on that front. When Euston's calls and texts run undoubtedly an issue for which there is no quick fix, however, the Scottish Government is committed to acting decisively on that issue. We will work to ensure, with the UK Government, where that is appropriate, that the needs of consumers are put first, taking Scottish-specific issues into account in a way that the current fragmented arrangements have failed perhaps to do. The greater powers in consumer and competition policy being devolved to our Parliament under the new Scotland Bill can offer us the opportunity to transform consumer protection in Scotland. I assure members that the Scottish Government will use powers effectively in that respect.