Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Monday 17th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 18 December 2024 and relates to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—the DMCC Act—which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The instrument makes amendments to legislation in consequence of Parts 3 and 4, and Chapter 2 of Part 5, of the Act.

Part 3 updates and strengthens enforcement of consumer protection law. Part 4 updates the legislative framework of consumer protections against unfair trading, introduces substantive new consumer rights in relation to subscriptions contracts and consumer savings schemes, and introduces reforms to alternative dispute resolution. Chapter 2 of Part 5 allows UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators in relation to competition, consumer protection and digital markets.

Many noble Lords contributed to this legislation through their scrutiny of it during its parliamentary passage, but I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, who made the recommendations that led to the granting of the CMA’s new enforcement powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, who took the Bill, as it was then, through this House.

To ensure the provisions of the Act take effect as Parliament intended, it is necessary to make consequential amendments to the enactments listed in the Schedule to the regulations. These are relatively minor changes that do not materially alter policy but are needed to ensure the seamless functioning of consumer protection law and enforcement.

The amendments within the instrument fall into three broad categories. The first extends the application of legislative provisions that permit public authorities to share certain information with consumer enforcers. At present, persons or bodies that gather information using powers under certain statutes may share that information to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, in certain circumstances.

This sharing is permitted by sections of the relevant statutes, which I will refer to as information gateways. These information gateways list the consumer protection legislation in relation to which information may be shared. For example, where Ofcom gathers information using powers in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the information gateway in Section 101 of that Act permits it to share that information with the Competition and Markets Authority for the purpose of enforcement of, among other things, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

As I have already said, the DMCC Act introduces a new consumer enforcement framework, new and updated consumer protections, and new provisions on investigative assistance to overseas regulators. It is therefore necessary to add references to these provisions to the information gateways in various statutes. Were these provisions not to be updated, the current approach, whereby public authorities may share information gathered under statutory powers to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, would be unavailable. This would compromise consumer protection, which could lead to consumer harm.

The second group of amendments is to Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These amendments ensure the CMA can use relevant investigatory powers in respect of its new direct enforcement powers. This will enable the CMA to monitor compliance with its direct enforcement notices as it currently can in relation to court enforcement orders. For example, at present, the CMA can require a person to provide information for the purposes of ascertaining whether a person is complying with a court enforcement order against them. This enables the CMA to ensure the enforcement orders are being complied with, and therefore that enforcement proceedings are having the desired effect. Under the DMCC Act, the CMA will also be able to use investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its direct enforcement functions.

The DMCC Act introduces a new power for the CMA to give final enforcement notices for failing to respond to an information notice alongside its other direct enforcement powers. The amendments in these regulations are necessary to ensure that the CMA is empowered to monitor compliance with this new power in the same way as in relation to the rest of the court-based and direct enforcement regime.

Finally, this instrument updates references to consumer laws that have been repealed and replaced by the Act with references to the relevant new provisions introduced. These amendments do not materially change the policy or effect of the underlying law; they simply keep the statute book up to date in the usual way. As I hope is clear from my remarks, the intention of these regulations is to update and maintain the frameworks that underpin consumer law and its enforcement to ensure that the DMCC’s consumer reforms can be introduced seamlessly, with no inadvertent detriment to consumers.

I invite noble Lords to support the passage of this instrument. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the shocking thing is that it was only in May of last year that we were working on the then DMCC Bill. It feels, frankly, a great deal longer ago; an awful lot has happened and a lot has changed. Some of the substantive aspects of what I will ask the Minister include getting some sense of how the tone has changed in our relationship with digital issues; and a question to get some sense of how the Government see things now, rather than how the previous Government saw things when we initially debated some of these issues.

As the Minister ably and clearly set out, this statutory instrument deals with three areas: consumer protection and law enforcement; unfair commercial practice and consumer rights; and international co-operation. On the latter, the measures facilitate Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act, which allows UK regulators to assist overseas regulators in matters related to competition, consumer protection and digital markets. This involves updating information gateways to permit the sharing of relevant information for investigative purposes.

That is really important when we look both to the west and to the east—that is, to the United States and to the European Union—because that bridge between our three data regimes is vital to the commercial future of this country. Although, when we were discussing the then Bill, there was relative harmony between the European Union and the United States in establishing their own data bridge, which underpins many of the issues that this part of the statutory instrument could change, I would suggest that that relationship is at best taut, if not snapped. We have yet to see the consequences of that snapping but, at some point, it will happen. Our relationship is almost literally sitting in the middle: we have an equivalence relationship with the European Union, and our data relationship with the United States rides on the back of the European Union’s data bridge. So a huge political issue is welling up here. I would like the Minister to tell your Lordships that the department is aware of it and is doing work; there is as much diplomatic work as data protection work to be done here because, in the end, it will be crucial to our service industries that we get this right, and calling it is going to be no easy measure. That is my first point.

Secondly, the Minister will be aware that there have been discussions about the Act’s scope—or, indeed, the lack of it. Some issues, such as secondary ticketing and greenwashing, have not been addressed by the Act; that is still seen as a limitation by stakeholders. As the Minister knows, a secondary ticketing review is going on. It would be useful if she could update your Lordships on where we are with that and when we might see some resolution. Also, how might any recommendations of that review find their way into statute, given that the Bill has already passed?

There is a general issue I would like to address before I address a specific one. We have heard a lot in the last week or two about bonfires of quangos. We have also seen a regime change in the CMA. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to set out that we will not see a stepping back by the CMA in doing its job, which is enabled through this Act. In her speech, she made clear the central role of the CMA, but it has to have the support of the Government to go after these sorts of things. We need to know that the Government still support the CMA in these kinds of activities.

One further point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, asked His Majesty’s Government

“when they plan to make regulations under Schedule 7 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to provide limited exemptions for permissible investment funds associated with foreign powers”,

such as sovereign wealth or public sector pension funds, to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines. This was an important point, which has been debated at length. Section 130 of the DMCC Act introduced Schedule 7, which makes provisions for the purposes of preventing foreign powers from gaining control or influence over newspaper enterprises. There is more that I will not go into, but there is also a debate around particular exemptions that might or might not exist—a state-owned investor exemption and a diversified business exemption.

All of these are still in the wash. The UK Government announced plans to commence parts of the Act, including those related to competition reforms, in December 2024 or January 2025. A technical consultation, which included draft secondary legislation that also debated the threshold points I just mentioned, was launched in mid-2024 to gather feedback before the implementation of these additional statutory instruments. These are expected to be laid before Parliament for scrutiny before entering into force. However, the Library tells us that this has not yet happened, nor has DCMS published a formal response to that consultation. It is high time that we knew where we are on this and that these statutory instruments see the light of day.

There is an ominous feeling around this. Look at the Answer that the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, gave to an Oral Question.

“On the SI to which the noble Baroness referred”—


this is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, raised—

“there has been a general election in the interim since the legislation was passed by the previous Government. Ministers recognise the high importance of foreign states not being allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance to encourage investment into the press sector. Therefore, we are carefully considering a response to the consultation. We hope to publish a response very soon”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 251.]

That is an ominous response given the debate that we had in May last year. I would like the Minister to put it into context.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Monday 17th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

Before the Division, I was about to turn to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the first of which was about the impact on SMEs and businesses. I remind noble Lords that we have accepted in full the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. We are confident that these increases will help millions of families across the country without placing excessive burdens on businesses. The remit of the LPC asks it to take into account the impact on businesses, including SMEs, competitiveness, the labour market and the wider economy. The LPC draws on extensive labour market and pay analysis and stakeholder evidence when recommending rates.

Regarding support for businesses as they adjust to these new rates, the 2025 national minimum wage and NLW rates were announced in the Autumn Budget 2024, more than five months before the rates came into effect. These timelines are consistent with previous years, providing businesses with the maximum adjustment time. Similar to previous years, the Government will undertake an extensive communications campaign to increase awareness and understanding of the changes to the rates coming into effect from 1 April 2025 and to ensure that businesses and workers are prepared. The communication campaign is expected to include targeted activities specifically to support SMEs. The Government also publish extensive guidance online to support businesses in understanding the legislation and the steps required to comply.

This Government are proud to be delivering the biggest upgrade to the rights of working people in decades. An ambitious minimum wage, backed by robust enforcement, will always be a cornerstone of a Labour Government’s employment rights framework, and we are grateful for cross-party support on this vital measure. As noted, the Government’s impact assessment, which was published alongside this legislation, estimates a direct pay rise for more than 3 million people, covering all the nations and regions of the UK and every sector of employment. It is worth repeating that a full-time worker on the national living wage will receive a gross annual pay rise on 1 April of £1,400, while an 18 to 20 year-old working full time on the national minimum wage will benefit to the tune of £2,500 a year.

I reiterate the Government’s thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the Low Pay Commission. Once a new remit is issued to the LPC, we will look forward to hearing its next recommendations later this year as we continue our path towards a genuine living wage for all adults. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

May I just take the Minister back to before the Division, when we were starting to talk about the fair work agency? Either she has nothing more to tell us or it somehow got lost in the wash. Her response was somewhat thematic but really short on process. It is not clear to me how the fair work agency will be juxtaposed with other enforcement activities. In her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, the Minister talked about the role of HMRC. Will HMRC no longer have that role? If not, will the fair work agency have access to the data that HMRC has in order to make its prosecutions? That is just one of the outstanding queries about how this new agency will operate in the context of enforcing this important change.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I talked about the additional rights and enforcing the wider roles and rules of the domestic agency, but on how that will be impacted operationally, as well as the interface with HMRC, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, with some details on exactly how that will be undertaken.

Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked whether judicial review is applicable. If the Minister is able to write to me on that, that would be helpful.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I absolutely will write to the noble Lord to follow up on that.

I was asked whether Companies House is equipped to deal with this volume of applications and what the administrative burden will be of undertaking a lot of these reviews. It is important to note that most applications for disclosure are going to be fairly straightforward and will not require the demonstration of legitimate interest. This requirement is required only for specific types of requests, such as those involving minors or bulk data, which we talked about. In those cases, applicants must provide evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions, and must explain the intended use of the information.

Companies House will draw on mechanisms similar to those used by HMRC, where applicants demonstrate a legitimate interest in disclosures from HMRC’s trust registration service. The registrar may request additional information or evidence to determine an application or refer a question to another party who they consider may be able to assist in determining the application. With extensive experience in handling sensitive requests, Companies House is well prepared; it has contingency plans to manage any surge in applications promptly and efficiently. I note that a nominal fee will be required of applicants to make sure that this is cost-neutral with regard to the Government. I think that covers most of those questions, but do correct me if I am wrong.

I shall now move on to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about what legitimate interest is, how it is pursued and followed up, and what the application process is. To apply for access to information about a specific trust, applicants must provide their personal information, the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust information, and the overseas entity’s name and ID. Applicants seeking trust information related to minors or bulk access—that is, applying for information on more than one trust in a single attempt —must demonstrate a legitimate interest, such as investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or a breach of sanctions imposed by regulations under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They must provide a statement to Companies House that they are requesting the relevant protected trusts’ information to further their investigation and a statement of how they plan to use the information. Companies House is not obliged to disclose the information if it could prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security; if it involves a pension scheme; and where the individual has applied for protection.

With regard to how someone will show that they are investigating money laundering et cetera for the legitimate interest test, applicants are expected to provide comprehensive details of the investigation that they are undertaking, supported by evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy and seriousness of their request. This will help ensure that applications are valid and that the process is not misused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I think that you talk to the problem at hand, which is how you balance off disclosure from harm. There will often be legitimate reasons for wanting to access this information, but there are also legitimate reasons why you would not want someone to have that information. I do not think that this is a policy where you can describe a single selection, or parameters, that will defend both sides, which is the exact reason for this process, I believe.

The applicant who requires the information has to give full and detailed information as to their identity and why they would need the information, and the individual whose details are being disclosed has the opportunity to write and say that this is information that could cause them harm were it to be disclosed—and proactively make that statement, so that the registrar has the ability to protect those interests. Then it is the registrar’s role to take that information and ensure that they are getting that balance right. They have the information about the applicant, and they can make that judgment based on whether something is a legitimate interest and this is not a bulk access—someone trying to get the full list of all the trustees so that they can sell their local accountancy advice, or whatever that motivation is. On the other hand, they also have the register for people who believe that interest would be detrimental to their personal ability. Their role is to balance the two, providing that transparency but also protecting them from harm.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to labour the point, but the way in which it is being depicted is as if people will accept the registrar’s ruling and say, “Oh, yeah, right, I understand why you’re not letting me do this”, or, “I understand why you’re letting this person look at my identity”. It seems to me that human nature will operate in exactly the opposite direction and that there will quickly be a huge backlog of people who do not agree with the registrar’s decision, one way or the other. There does not seem to be a defined appeal process. If it is all getting lumped into judicial review, we all know how long that takes and what it leads to—and if there is no system and it all ends at the registrar, there is huge pressure on the registrar to be right every time, which will be extraordinarily difficult. While I can understand how it is being described, my sense is that it will be a lot messier than that.

EU Law

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

We are resetting the relationship with our European friends to strengthen ties, secure a broad-based security pact and tackle barriers to trade. We are working with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, such as the economy, energy security and resilience. There will be issues that are difficult to resolve as well as areas that we will stand firm on, and we have been clear that there will be no return to freedom of movement, to the customs union or to the single market. We will work together and with respect to international law and shared institutions.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad the Minister mentioned the reset. Have the Government responded formally to the offer by the EU’s chief trade negotiator that the EU is interested in discussing with the UK the prospect of the UK joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. That is something that we are willing to discuss.

Competition and Markets Authority Chairman

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. He is right; regulation and growth need not be mutually exclusive. This is about creating sustainable long-term growth that protects not only consumers but businesses, so that they have a fair, competitive and open ground on which to compete.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, whether you characterise the change in chairmanship of the CMA as a sacking or not, all the government statements are clearly designed to create a change in behaviour within the CMA. If this change of behaviour had been applied for the past two years, say, could the Minister tell us which decisions the CMA made would have been different? How much more growth would we have had over those two years, had the CMA been applying the Government’s new strictures?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I come back to a prior answer; this is not about how we look at independent tactical decisions on a case-by-case basis and reflect on what would or could have been. This is about no longer accepting dormant growth within the economy, viewing our regulators through the lens of how we create long-term sustainable growth and making sure that we are aligned with that. To that end, we are consulting on a new strategic steer regarding the CMA, which is expected soon.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Gustafsson

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister to her place. The construction sector in the UK is not only one of the largest but one of the most vital industries underpinning our economy, as both noble Lords noted. In 2022, the sector achieved a turnover of £487 billion and employed over 3 million individuals, representing about 8% of the UK workforce. Its contributions are therefore fundamental in driving economic growth, fostering innovation and advancing development throughout the nation.

However, the sector is also characterised by considerable fragmentation. There are over 444,000 businesses engaged in a broad spectrum of work, ranging from contracting and product supply to associated professional services. The fragmentation is compounded by complex, multi-tiered supply chains, as major projects often involve 50 or more firms working collaboratively.

This brings us to the topic of retention sums, which are a long-standing practice in the construction sector. Retention—as it is still called for now—sums serve as a financial safeguard and ensure that work meets the required standards. Typically, half of the retention is released upon project completion while the remaining portion is withheld until the expiration of the defect’s liability period, proving additional assurance that all specifications are met. That, at least, is the dictionary definition of retention.

Given the current practices within the sector, we need to focus on the amendment introduced by these regulations. They all come into force on 1 March 2025 and apply to the financial year starting on or after 1 April 2025. The changes impose specific reporting requirements for qualifying companies and limited liability partnerships operating within the sector. The amendment extends existing reporting regulations and requires qualifying companies to disclose detailed information about their payment practices, policies and performance in relation to retention clauses in construction contracts.

Companies will be required to report on whether retention clauses are included in their contracts, the percentage of retention withheld and the procedures followed for releasing these sums. Additionally, businesses will be asked to disclose the contract value thresholds under which no retention clause applies and outline the standard rate of retention typically applied in their agreements. By 1 March 2025, qualifying businesses will be obliged to publicly report on their payment practices, specifically concerning retention clauses in construction contracts.

It is important that this amendment acknowledges the significant challenges caused by fragmentation within the construction sector, which of course affects businesses of all sizes. We understand that the aim of these regulations, as the Minister noted, is to enhance transparency by requiring businesses to report not only the inclusion of retention clauses but whether their retention practices align with industry standards or are more onerous than typical practices. Furthermore, companies will be required to provide clear descriptions of the processes that they follow to release retention sums, which is intended to ensure greater clarity and fairness for all parties involved. However, there are several important points on which further clarification is needed.

These amendments are said to provide increased transparency, fairness and clarity within the construction sector, but can the Government explain the mechanisms by which the regulations themselves will be enforced? How will compliance be monitored and what penalties will be applied to businesses found to be in breach of the new requirements? Additionally, while the new regulations seek to promote fairer payment practices, can the Government elaborate on how they plan to ensure that large companies are not able to exploit their market position, despite the new transparency measures? Will there be any safeguards in place to prevent larger firms imposing even more burdensome retention clauses on SMEs?

The regulations are presented as a solution to the ongoing issue of delayed payments, which have long caused a financial strain on SMEs, yet how will the Government measure the effectiveness of these changes? What evidence is there to suggest that requiring businesses to disclose their retention practices will have a significant impact on the cash-flow issues faced by smaller companies? As an aside, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has raised an important point about how we will judge these companies in future, based on these particular metrics. These are not, of course, the only things by which one should judge a company or its potential to complete a project successfully and efficiently, so will there be some way of measuring that as well? If that has not been considered, it is something that should be.

While these measures are presented as steps towards promoting better cash-flow management and financial security for smaller businesses, we would urge the Government to further clarify how the regulations will be implemented and monitored to ensure that they achieve their intended outcomes. Will there be a review process to assess whether these regulations are having the desired effect on industry practices and the broader economy?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support for these regulations from across the Committee. I thank the noble Lords and noble Baronesses present for their constructive comments on this measure. Allow me to try to address each of the questions that they asked in order.

First, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He asked a number of questions, the first of which was: have the previous regulations come into effect yet? The answer is yes; they came into effect and required a report as of 1 January 2025.

The noble Lord’s second question was about how the regulations will be enforced and how the accuracy of the data will be monitored. For that, the Department for Business and Trade will implement a more visible compliance and enforcement approach with non-compliant businesses going forward. Businesses that do not take action to meet their reporting obligations will be prosecuted.

We had a question, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about why we would not just abolish retention payments altogether—that is, why are we taking this measure forward and not abolishing it in its entirety? The Government are aware of the impact that retentions have on the supply chain. We are very committed to going further to tackle poor payment practices: in September 2024, we announced our plans to consult on new legislative measures. Now, as part of that consultation, we intend to consult on measures that will address poor payment practices.

Moving on, I refer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox: does defining retention create a potential loophole for companies? Will they suddenly be redefined as completion bonuses? This is one of the arguments in favour of taking this sort of measured, proportionate approach, because we will be able to identify any unintended consequences of some of this legislation, but a key aspect of addressing the naming convention is that it is very clearly defined in a schedule not by what it is called but by the behaviours that it exhibits. Of course, we will monitor this and make sure that, if it requires an update, we will do so accordingly.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked what the penalties are for failure to comply. The penalty for a breach of the 2017 regulations is an unlimited fine where a company fails to report or makes a false report.

Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about sanctions, whistleblowing and the imbalance of power in the supply chain. I say in response that the imbalance of power in the construction supply chain is an ongoing challenge; that is widely understood and acknowledged. However, through the introduction of payment reporting measures for retentions and the enforcement of them, we will be able to create an incentive for firms to improve their payment practices in relation to retentions, as has happened following the introduction of the payment reporting regulations. As I talked about in my introduction to this instrument, we have seen the number of businesses paying within 60 days improve from 82% to 96%, so we should be encouraged that we are supporting correct behaviours with regard to policy.

This Government are committed to making sure that we tackle late and long payments. We want the UK to be the best place in the world for both large and small businesses to thrive. This work on retention payments aligns closely with the department’s wider policy on late payments and will strengthen the existing payment reporting regulations. It will provide for enhanced transparency in relation to the practice of withholding retentions—a practice that, as we have heard, is all too often unfair to small businesses and can, of course, be subject to abuse. It will also provide information to small firms and the construction supply chain about the policies and performance of firms that they are considering working for, enabling them to make better-informed decisions and to secure the payment of moneys due.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I asked a very specific question around public procurement. I ask it again: if I am a public procurer and two bidders are more or less the same—or exactly the same—in their bid, but one of them has late payment, am I legally allowed to use late payment as the reason for not accepting that bid? Secondly, developing that question, if the late payer has the cheapest bid, can I also use late payment and retention payments as a reason for not awarding to that bid?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I apologise for not addressing that specifically. My understanding is that this information will help support a party in a commercial negotiation and will, ultimately, form part of its decision-making. As regards the technicality of whether one could legally use that as a way in or out of a contract, I will make sure that we write to the noble Lord on the specifics of that.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It is really important because we are seeing, not necessarily under the Procurement Act but under the NHS, major legal tussles over the misapplication of the assumed rules of contract awards—not least in clinical waste disposal, where another six or seven health authorities are being taken to court. This is expensive; it will cost the public and the Exchequer. So it is important that we and public procurers understand from the outset whether this is window dressing or material to the procurement process.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I acknowledge that. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord about the importance of getting that clarification; we will be sure to write to him in that regard.