Report comment

Ban cold-calling ?

Lord Keen states that many calls are untraceable or come from overseas and that a simple “ban” would be ineffective. I disagree. Firstly they are traceable. Otherwise the caller wouldn’t make the call. The Govt could implement an outright ban and that will deter some. For the others, once the ban is in place, recipients of calls could report the caller to the police who would then pursue the callers and whoever the callers are selling the work on to. To say that the callers are untouchable is thoroughly defeatist and an insult to our intelligence.

Fraud ?

Lord Keen confirmed that there are “many” cases of fraud. When asked how many he confirmed that he did not know. Of course, I’m not suggesting that his evidence was misleading but if you emphasise the word “many” you ought to be in a position to refer to some method of quantification process which had been undertaken even if you can’t quote actual numbers.

The proposed wholesale changes are based on the vague promise of fraud eradication (not to mention the substantial insurance premium windfalls). Sadly, like other criminal activities fraud will never be eradicated. It will merely change in form and detail.

All in all the proponents of the changes came across poorly today whereas opponents offered up good reasoning.

Both Judges gave compelling evidence indicating that the Court and its resources would be substantially impacted by the proposed changes. How can anyone argue with that ?