Lord Harris of Haringey
Main Page: Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour - Life peer)Consumer Rights Bill
Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts
Baroness King of Bow
My Lords, Amendments 50C and 56A both seek to ensure that the final provider of services approves any website offering services through them. This area is the digital equivalent of the cowboy mechanic charging people left, right, and centre for services they do not need. We know it is important to take action on copycat websites: the question is, how far will we go?
I start by examining how far they go to con consumers out of money. The examples are legion. I shall not detain the Committee for too long, but I will follow the top three copycat websites with a special commendation for con artistry, because I simply could not resist. Here are the top three copycat websites, in reverse order, identified in a poll of 1,750 people for moneysavingexpert.com. These people were all caught or nearly caught by those website scams.
In third place are websites for driving licence applications and renewals. They are supposed to cost £20 but these websites were charging up to £80. In second place are passport applications and renewals. They are supposed to cost £137; people were being charged up to £237. In first place are European health insurance cards. These are free, yet hundreds of people were being charged £25 for a free service.
There is a special commendation for con artistry. This goes to the copycat websites covering tax returns, because they are simply superb at what they do; that is, conning and scamming people. As we know, HMRC provides a free service to all taxpayers, yet the taxreturngateway.com website charges consumers between £150 and £1,000 for processing a self-assessment tax return. The company said this was justified because forms were checked for mistakes, but Which? points out that this is clearly misleading as that is exactly what the HMRC official site does.
You might think that you would have to be a bit of an idiot to pay for a free service; in that case I put myself in the idiot bracket. To be slightly gentler, we might be called idiots/people in a rush. You know how it is: you have a lot of things to do, you go online, and you click on what you believe to be an official site. I did that before I travelled to America. Instead of paying $14 for an ESTA visa I paid $40. Yes, I did feel like an idiot when I realised that I had paid a 300% surcharge simply because I was convinced I was on an official website when I was not.
The important point is that as the Government move to put more public services online, it is incumbent upon them to take all possible measures to prevent public service users and consumers being ripped off on an hourly basis. The Government have taken action on this. It is good news, for instance, that Google have removed misleading sponsored adverts. But at the end of the day it is the Government who need to take responsibility in this area, certainly more than a private company.
This is about consumers being legally scammed and ripped off in a calculated manner. The new single web domain, GOV.UK, is indeed welcome for providing the best way to access government services. But the Government can do more to prevent this problem at source, and this is what the amendments propose. Agencies should be able to detect, for instance, when mass applications are coming from the same IP source, because at that point there is an opportunity to evaluate whether the companies are providing a service that is actually value for money. If they are not, these websites can then be blocked by the agency.
For instance, many noble Lords in this Room will presumably be aware of what TfL has done, for instance. Consumers were regularly being overcharged for the congestion charge by copycat websites, with between £2 and £8 being added to their payment. TfL has now said in a public consultation:
“We are proposing an amendment to the Congestion Charging legislation so that we can refuse to accept Congestion Charge payments which are made by these unofficial websites or other unauthorised third parties which mislead road users into paying a fee in addition to the Congestion Charge. TfL will accept payments from third parties for someone else’s vehicle where there is no charge or commercial gain for making payment on their behalf; for example, payments made by people using car hire vehicles. We are planning to refuse payments from unauthorised third parties from December 2014”.
That is incredibly welcome, but instead of every single provider having to change legislation, why can we not ensure through this legislation that other providers can do the same?
The Transport Select Committee is the latest body to criticise the Government on this, saying:
“It is illegal to deliberately mislead the public or obtain money by fraud; the agencies providing services on behalf of the Government should do everything practicable to prevent users of their services from being misled or becoming the victims of fraud”.
TfL’s work here is a really strong and practical example of why just getting Google to police the internet is not the only thing on which the Government should concentrate. It is not the only practicable action that the Government can take.
Another point is that companies and service providers want to be able to control who sells on their services. We can all understand that—sometimes they may be a good thing. One option to explore is around having approved retailers, and we have that example with the Post Office. The ASA has also taken action on misleading adverts and websites. Can the Minister confirm that it cannot take further action against those websites as they exist at present? What further protections will the Bill give consumers in dealing with that problem, above and beyond what the Government have done to date? Does the Minister see a case for expanding “check and send” style services available in local post offices, where they provide a clear benefit for consumers?
In summary, I recognise that the Government have taken action in this area. Indeed, the letter from the Cabinet Office Minister dated 8 October illuminates the impact of government activity to date, which is a very good thing. But the fact is that clearly more could be done to stop copycat websites at source. That is what these amendments ask for, and that is why I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest: I chair National Trading Standards. Its particular relevance to this amendment is that that body funds and supports the work of the National Trading Standards eCrime unit, which has recently taken action that has led to the arrest of a number of people associated with the delivery of copycat websites.
In moving this amendment, my noble friend highlighted the sorts of issues that arise in this regard. The most striking example is that of the European health insurance card, which is provided free. Those who have applied for renewal, as I have recently, will have found it an extremely simple and easy process. The fact that people were persuaded to pay up to £25 demonstrates how easy it was for the scammers behind some of these sites.
It is also clear that this is extremely big business, and there is no doubt that the area is under-reported. My noble friend in moving this amendment admitted her embarrassment in realising that she had been caught in this way. I rather suspect that most of us would feel embarrassed and stupid. Because people do not apply that often for European health insurance cards or passports, they would simply write it off to experience and hope to remember to do it differently in 10 years’ time, or whenever the time came.
The reality is that this area has been under-reported for many years. I am reluctant to comment too much on the arrests that have taken place, or the individuals involved, but I saw an article in the Mail on Sunday, which no doubt checked its legal position, about the scale of the revenues, and so on, that may be involved in this. It is clear to me that we may be talking about tens of millions of pounds, and maybe more, which individual citizens have paid unnecessarily through these copycat websites. The profits for those behind them are no doubt extremely large. So something needs to be done.
Again, my noble friend referred to the recent letter from the Cabinet Office setting out a number of initiatives that should take place, but there are a number of areas where everyone needs to make their contribution. Clearly, we as members of the public need to be better informed, and I am pleased that the National Trading Standards eCrime unit recently produced a public information guide called The Owl and the CopyCat, which was designed to demonstrate to people exactly how they ought to behave, and the dangers of going on copycat websites. So the public have a responsibility.
Secondly, the search engines have a responsibility. It may well be in their commercial interest to accept ads from these dubious websites and to place them at the top of search results, but that is not acceptable, and I am pleased that the Government have sought to persuade the search engines that this is inappropriate.
Thirdly, there is a responsibility on law enforcement and trading standards to investigate and to establish whether offences have been committed in terms of misleading the public.
The fourth area relates to the legitimate websites themselves. This is what the amendments in this group are all about. They will know—they must know—where the money is coming from. They will know if it is being channelled through particular IP addresses. They should take steps to monitor what is happening; they should take steps to intervene. The amendment clearly makes it an offence to charge unreasonably for any services associated with applying for a particular public service: the additional assistance element. The second amendment in the group suggests that the legitimate websites should look at whether the charges are legitimate, appropriate and proportionate to what is required.
I mentioned the European health insurance card. The process for applying for this is extremely simple. It is difficult to see what conceivable value additional assistance could provide as far as that is concerned; you would still have to provide your national insurance number or whatever it is to the copycat website, and that is all you have to enter. I recently had the experience of applying for a Russian visa for my daughter. This is an arduous process at the best of times. It is even more arduous when dealing with the bureaucracy of the Russian state. When I embarked on the process, I found what I assumed were a number of copycat websites. I thought, “No, I won’t be caught like this, I’ll go through the GOV.UK website, which will refer me to the correct Russian visa site and so on”. I embarked on the process and I have to say that at the end of it I would happily have paid somebody fifty quid to deal with the bureaucracies involved.
That is why we should take this back to what is an appropriate and legitimate charge for additional assistance. What the copycat websites are doing is saying somewhere in the small print that they are not the official site but are providing a service. We need to get beyond that and ask, first, whether the service that they are providing is necessary and, secondly, whether the charge that they are making is proportionate to the complexity of what they are providing to the consumer.
These amendments go beyond that to say that it would be entirely possible for the official websites to determine which additional service providers are authorised and to produce a scale of legitimate charges that could be made.
If we are placing an obligation on members of the public to be more vigilant and to carry out their own due diligence, and if we are placing an obligation on the search engine providers to be more vigilant and provide that service, surely it is legitimate to say to the legitimate websites that they should exercise due diligence and provide information and a measure by which we can determine whether any additional assistance provided is worth it. Where it is not, they should not accept payment from those sources.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I make it clear that sites that try to palm themselves off as legitimate government services need to be stopped. We do not want cowboys battening on the services that are legitimately provided by the state. Therefore I sympathise with these amendments. This is a problem that the Government recognise and are taking action on. I was to glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about some of the successes that trading standards has had. He is right to emphasise the scale of the issue and the numbers involved in copycat websites.
We know that the way most people inadvertently end up on misleading websites of this kind is by clicking on adverts that are prominently displayed on search results pages. The Government Digital Service, which the noble Baroness mentioned in relation to the Cabinet Office letter, has been working with search engine providers such as Google to take down adverts for these sites. They are in breach of the search engines’ own policies and many of them have been removed.
There are a lot of parallels here with the problem of websites offering copyright-infringing material which also tend to be found through search results. We have been working on that, too. I have had meetings with some of the ISPs and others, and I am pleased to say that the main search providers are fully engaged on the issues.
We have also made sure that the existing law is being effectively enforced. Earlier in the year, my colleague Jenny Willott MP provided £120,000 in additional government funding to the National Trading Standards eCrime Team to support enforcement action against copycat websites. In late June, four search warrants were executed on properties in England. The operation led to the arrest of five individuals and disrupted the operation of at least 25 copycat websites. A criminal investigation is ongoing. This sort of action matters because it sends a message to the cowboys that this will not be tolerated.
Government agencies are also proactive in this area. The Intellectual Property Office is pursuing, prosecuting and putting out of business two operators of websites masquerading as official IPO services. That action was pursued successfully using the common-law remedy for passing off.
The noble Baroness, Lady King, mentioned the ASA. It continues to take action on a case-by-case basis and can take action on repeat offenders. It took action in November 2013 on Jars Services Limited which was trading—wait for it—as www.drivinglicence.org.uk. In September 2013, it took action against TAD Services trading as UK-Passport.net, and in June 2013, it took action against European Health Insurance Card trading as EHIC. The noble Baroness made a good point about the areas where this fraud is being perpetrated. We need to work to get those sites taken down.
The IPO case has been helped because for the first time ever, we have set up a website where consumers and traders can report copycat sites. This is specifically to protect and empower other consumers. Full details can be found on the excellent GOV.UK website which we are all pleased to see up and running. It allows a modern and dynamic response appropriate to the online era.
I reassure noble Lords that there is already law in place to protect consumers from being misled into a purchase. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 have been much mentioned during our debates and are very important. We also take enforcement action against these websites under intellectual property law. With a robust legal framework in place, we have been working to enforce the law and go further in partnership with industry.
However, I am not convinced that the law needs to be changed in the way proposed today. The amendment would in effect require government to regulate every third-party service. Government would need to approve it, issue guidance and determine reasonable cost scales. That would be a significant intervention in this marketplace. We should not take such steps unless the interventions we already make are not working and there is clear evidence that further intervention is needed.
People’s behaviour and expectations with regard to online services are constantly evolving and difficult to predict. We are keen not to stifle innovation or negatively impact websites that are honest and legitimate and provide value-added services. The most effective option is to enforce the existing legal sanctions against misleading websites which breach consumer protection legislation or IP law. In addition, we are going further by supporting search engines in assessing whether a third party offering services related to a government service is actually a genuine service. This complies with the search engines’ own guidelines and polices.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Could the Minister elaborate on that point? If the Government are working with search engine providers and essentially saying to them, “This is a legitimate additional service provider”, or, “That is not”, are they not already starting the process of regulating what she talked about as a legitimate marketplace? They must make that judgment already to be able to say to the search engine providers, “This is an illegitimate, copycat website”, or, “That is a legitimate service provider”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. I know what is happening in certain areas but not across the board. If I may, I will take the noble Lord’s question away and come back to him. It is also important to publicise better the sort of things that are being done in this area. I have tried to do that in a small way today, as has the noble Baroness, Lady King. For the present, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am feeling very proud as I managed to renew my passport online and got it from the Passport Office in, I think, 48 hours. I thank the Passport Office for being able to do that online and for its incredible efficiency.
In moving Amendment 50F, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, I will speak also to Amendments 50H and 50J. These concern issues that we addressed when we discussed the Bill’s provisions in relation to goods. We are worried about consumers whose personal safety is at risk due to the quality of workmanship in their house. They should not have to have the same people back to make a first attempt at repairing whatever they have botched before being able to ask for a refund of their money and any associated costs. The importance of the amendment will be clear to all consumers.
A trading standards representative gave written evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the remedy in the Bill was insufficient where dangerous service was involved. In these circumstances consumers should have the right to end the service and get their money back. At present, the Bill enables consumers who find that a service is not undertaken with reasonable skill and care—a normal service, if you like—to have that service undertaken again and to get their money back or obtain a price reduction only if the repeat service does not work. These amendments address the problem whereby a consumer’s personal safety is at risk and would allow them to move straight to obtaining a refund rather than risk their safety any further by having to have a repeat performance by an incompetent or careless supplier.
On a previous occasion we gave the example of a gas fitter who services a boiler and causes a leak or a builder who knocks down the very wall that he is meant to be building. These may appear extreme cases but, sadly, we know that they happen and we know that we would not want such tradesmen back in our houses. Therefore, we would like a consumer to be able to obtain a refund and employ another company in these circumstances without first having to have the same company attempt to repair the damage.
I know that the Government have looked at these measures in another place and feel that they are not necessary as the consumer will retain access to a common-law remedy for damages. The Bill sets out clear remedies and courses of action but for consumers to have to argue with the tradesperson in court in order to solve this problem does not seem to us a clever way forward, in addition to all the expensive legal action that is bound to be involved. This amendment would give clarity and keep these issues out of court. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I will speak in support of this amendment. I declare a personal interest in this matter. I appreciate that this Committee has turned into an opportunity for all of us to explain our recent experiences of various sorts, but I suspect that this is one of the most recent experiences. Having had a series of problems with a boiler installed in my home, we called out—for the second time in this instance—a contractor to come to try to put it right. Last Tuesday evening I got home and, despite a slight cold, detected what I took to be a smell of gas. We summoned the appropriate people, who came with their little sniffer things, and so on, and declared that whoever had allegedly repaired this boiler and the flues had left it in a state whereby not only was there a serious gas leak but there was a serious leak of carbon monoxide. Fortunately, the boiler is in a basement area, although presumably it could have become an excitingly combustible place. However, the reality was that it had been left in a seriously dangerous situation.
After I had spent some time swearing at the contractors—and I am tempted to use parliamentary privilege and name them, so that residents of north London are warned of these people—the offer was made that they should come to put it right. They were shocked, as I was, that they might have left this in a dangerous situation. My immediate reaction, which remains my reaction, despite the fact that we have no gas at all in the house, because the gas board has been in and disconnected everything for the sake of safety, was that these were the last people whom I would like to come in and rectify the problem. Indeed, I notice that the contractor has e-mailed and phoned me today, clearly because he wants to be paid for the work that was originally done.
This is precisely one of those areas where the consumer needs a very clear legal position. I had not actually looked at my noble friend’s amendment until today, but this is exactly what is required under these circumstances. I wish that this could be made retrospective and that I would simply be able to point to Section 54 of the Consumer Rights Act, as it would then be, and say, “Hang on, there’s no question that we’re having a full refund of the cost and any additional fees associated with bringing somebody else in”. That is what most sensible people would expect. If the Government are serious about giving the consumer sensible rights, they should provide that in the Bill.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, we have taken great care in developing these remedies, for obvious reasons, and we have had a very good example today. Services are a vital part of our economy. In addition, SMEs and micro-businesses make up the vast majority of services businesses. It is therefore essential that we get these remedies right.
When we consulted on these remedies in 2012, respondees supported the approach that we are taking. They considered it a sensible, balanced approach. Based on the support that we received for this approach to remedies, I am not convinced we need to amend them as this amendment proposes. The remedies that we have are clear for traders and consumers, and it is set out clearly in the Bill when the consumer can ask for each remedy. This is important: The British Retail Consortium told us that it agreed that,
“this approach would be helpful to the extent it is practical and realistic”.
However, we have also catered for the more extreme cases where personal safety is at risk. Here I should say that these notes were written before we had heard the story just told by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Let me reassure him that the Bill does not force the consumer to have a trader whom they do not trust back in to repeat a service. The remedies set out in detail in this chapter of the Bill are not the only remedies available. To make this clear, we have written into Clause 54 that the consumer retains their access to common-law remedies.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, asked a wonderful question. It was short and acute and went to the heart of the issue because the other remedies, the common-law remedies, are expensive and take a long time and any trader will know that no one is going to take them to court for £200 or £300—even my good and noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I am tempted to offer to come and help.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Is this on the public record, because I am still in discussion with the trader concerned?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I take my noble friend’s point about making this retrospective.
There is a serious issue here. The consultation at the beginning may not have thrown this up because when any of us respond to consultations we have not always thought about all the implications and what could happen and that there might be something dangerous. I urge the Government not to rely too much on consultation on what was a big Bill at the time. No one actually thought about this.
There are a number of issues. The major one is that on quite an important issue it reverts to the old way, which is to go to court, and that does not suit consumers. I do not think it is very good for court expenses or for the trader. Just because the consumer has a right to a refund and to find another trader, it does not mean that they will. The Minister said that some consumers will want the same trader back because they do not want to look for another one. That is fine. Nothing will stop them doing that. The amendment does not require the consumer to have a refund instead of having the old trader back. It states that they should not have to go through one repair before they have their money back.
As I think we said when we raised this and the other safety issues at an earlier stage, this is something we will need to come back to because if consumer rights do not provide the basics such as keeping consumers safe, there is something missing. We will have to think about how we can pursue this on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I support my noble friend in this amendment, in particular subsection (4). I am glad that my noble friend used the word “obligations” because if I had looked at this earlier I would have wanted to move an amendment calling it “Display of information about rights and obligations”, because that can have a greater impact on the consumer. I support the amendment because I concluded, in the last few years that I was a Member of Parliament in another place, that some of the worst cases coming to my constituency surgeries were people who had been stitched up by the big utility companies and the mobile phone operators. In many cases there were only oral contracts. When they had a concern, they would get on to the helpline. As innocent constituents, they kept making the mistake of thinking that if they phoned and got through to the special helpline the problem would be solved. Of course, the people on the special helpline would say, “Yes, that’s fine, we’ll take your point into consideration and it will be amended”—but still the threatening letters and the bailiff’s letters came because, very often, the people running the helpline had no power to alter the computer accounts for the company.
A written statement is absolutely essential if there is an oral contract. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, pointed out that we seem to go by personal example. I shall cite one example of why I think the mobile telephone companies in particular are among the worst offenders. Some years ago, I took out a contract for a mobile phone. It was clear when I had the paperwork the first time that, if I cancelled the contract within two years, I would pay a heavy penalty. I was content with that and went blithely on my way. As it transpired, exactly 23 months later, I got a telephone call, “Hello Dave, it’s your mobile phone operator here—do you realise, Dave, that you can get a better tariff from us? We’ve looked at what you pay and you can reduce the Bill by about £2 a month, and you’ll get a free telephone upgrade”. I thought that was jolly good and asked what the catch was. “Oh, no catch, Dave, that’s it”. So I agreed to it. A few months later, when I fell out with that telephone company because I did not like the service and wanted to cancel, they said, “You can’t cancel, your contract’s only three months old”. I said, “No it’s not—it’s 27 months old”. “Oh,” they said, “that telephone call you had created a new contract”.
I appreciate that all of you here are commercially savvy and knew that, but in 2009 or 2010, I did not realise that. But then I found more and more constituents with the same problem. They were being sold things over the telephone, particularly electricity contracts from one particular supplier, and they never got the follow-up paperwork. It is absolutely essentially that when any contracts are made or revised orally, the consumer gets a written statement pointing out their rights and obligations. I hope that with changed or improved wording my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept the principle of this amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I should add that this is not simply about protecting the consumer—poor Dave, or whoever else it might be. It is also about protecting the legitimate businesses that are operating properly, because it makes it more difficult for those trying to pull a fast one on Dave or anybody else, because they will not get away with it. For that reason, to protect the consumer and legitimate businesses, I hope that we get some progress on this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
I shall make only a brief comment because I want to hear what the Minister is going to say. It would be useful to reflect upon the fact that the National Consumer Federation is the only consumer organisation in the country that is not supplied with money from anyone other than its members. It is a small organisation that was set up originally by the National Consumer Council and Which? because they wanted a grassroots response rather than simply remain in their ivory towers writing their great papers. I was the chairman, then my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who took it to greater heights. For a small group like that to have got as many people into this Room as there are at this moment says good things about our country and about our consumer representation. There is always a place for a small group which can get someone like my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes to take it forward. I am very proud that she has done so.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, as I said when we discussed point of sale information for goods and services in previous sessions, the Government believe that it is really important that consumers should feel confident about exercising their rights. Last Wednesday the noble Baroness, Lady King, reminded us that Martin Lewis from moneysavingexpert.com had stressed the importance of a simple and clear version of our consumer rights when he gave evidence to the BIS Select Committee on the Bill. We agree with him, which is why I am delighted that moneysavingexpert.com is one of the consumer organisations that is working with us on the high-level summary of consumer rights that the Minister and I have mentioned on a number of occasions. This summary covers our rights when we buy goods, services or digital content, and members of the implementation group are working to ensure that it is written in plain English.
In the debates relating to previous amendments concerning the requirement to provide consumer information at the point of sale or at the point of complaint, I set out the Government’s objections to requiring every single business providing goods, services and digital content to set out a consumer’s rights every time they make a purchase. Perhaps I may briefly reiterate. These were, first, that consumers are already faced with a lot of information at the point of sale, and I suspect that most of us are not going to take in information that is not immediately relevant to our purchase decision. Secondly, it is will be particularly irritating to be faced with an oral statement or handed a piece of paper setting out our rights every time we buy a newspaper in the corner shop or arrange by phone to have the dog walked—not to mention the burden this would place on the trader. Thirdly, it could cause significant confusion where the trader’s own policies were more generous than consumers’ statutory rights or where sectoral regulation of services requires specific remedies that the trader must offer.
My noble friend the Minister mentioned the concerns of a major retailer that a requirement to set out a consumer’s basic rights would completely undermine its core message. This was that a customer who is dissatisfied for any reason could bring the product back because it wanted to do what it and the customer thought was right in the circumstances, even if that went beyond what the law would require.
In answer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, the British Retail Consortium has said that it would happily join in providing information at the point of sale but does not support the mandatory provision of consumer information for reasons I have given. The BRC, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce all oppose this too.
Fourthly, it would be perplexing for consumers to have to have their attention drawn to their full rights at every point in the complaints process even in circumstances where they have said what they want and the trader has immediately agreed.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on consumers who are sold things over the telephone and have no written follow-up, the consumer has to be given a range of pre-contractual information under the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, so a situation in which a consumer does not know they are entering a contract should no longer arise, with effect from 2013. For all these reasons, we do not believe that requiring this information to be given to all consumers before they purchase goods or services or, indeed, afterwards, would achieve the best outcome for consumers or for businesses.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Baroness gave the horrifying image of someone’s rights having to be read to them before they could buy a newspaper. Would her objection to this provision disappear if there were a de minimis element within it so that the transaction had to be worth more than £5 or £25, for example? It would be helpful to know that. Secondly, is the argument that consumers will be confused if they are told that they have more rights rather than less the best that the Minister can deploy, because that is essentially what she said? Given that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, suggested that she might bring this amendment back on Report, it is important that the Minister who is to reply on that occasion deploys some rather better arguments.
Baroness Jolly
I can rely on the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to put me on the spot. The de minimis element of £5 may be worth looking at but that sort of decision is considerably above my pay grade. Noble Lords should consider how irritating it is to listen to commercial adverts. The advert itself may be absolutely fine but then all the rights are read out so quickly that you cannot take them in, or at least I cannot do so.
We have strong backing from business organisations to promote the summary of consumer rights to their members on a voluntary basis. It will be a central tool that we provide to businesses in April. It will help them comply with the new obligations they will have and explain these rights to their customers, so avoiding costly shop-floor mistakes that undermine their reputation. We do not need every single retailer in the country to be obliged to display the summary of consumer rights to achieve our objective of increasing consumer knowledge and confidence but we will be looking for a significant take-up. We consider that this approach, supported by Which?, will be far more effective, and far less burdensome, than the mandatory approach proposed by these amendments. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Wilcox
Does the noble Lord mean equal opportunity? No, we are not born equal, that is for sure. Some people are tall, some fat and some short. We are not born equal but we should have equality of opportunity. That is what the noble Lord is arguing for.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I think we are straying into unnecessary territory here—very philosophical points which are no doubt extremely interesting. I will not rehearse at length the argument I made when this Committee last discussed this matter. However, there is an obligation on government as far as this is concerned because government do not enable us to have some simple system of verifying who we are. When we need to verify our identity, we are required to turn up with a paper copy, sent to us via the post, of a utility bill. All my utilities are trying to move over to sending everything electronically but an electronic copy does not suffice for those purposes. Until such time as we have a system of identify verification, people will rely on receiving paper utility bills.
I have one other point why paper utility bills are important. We are encouraged by government to switch suppliers. This is part of the philosophy of improving competition. You switch suppliers. You move to another supplier. You have a new website to go into and a new password. All these passwords, I am sure, we do our best to remember and not write down somewhere. Of course, you can no longer access the website of your previous supplier because you are no longer their customer. If you need to check back on whether the prices are indeed comparable, that data are no longer available unless you, the customer, spend money on printing them out and keep a paper copy. Surely that is the wrong way round.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am slightly reluctant to speak against the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and indeed that of my noble friend Lady Maddock, but, going against the grain of the debate, I think that I ought to do so. We have to say that the digital economy has provided huge savings and efficiencies in payment, booking and ticket systems, and the consumer should be allowed to benefit from that. We have to encourage these changes and simply to say that we are not going to do so is basically saying that the future is the past. I do not think we can ignore them.
I take the example of easyJet, an independent company away from the utilities. Are we saying that the equivalent of easyJet, which started competing against British Airways, would not have been allowed to discount its prices and reward customers who book online? I just do not think that that is the way forward. By all means say that we do not want extra charges put on people who are paying by cheque during the transition, but do not say, as it does in this amendment, that we should not offer a discount to those who are actually giving up their money more quickly by paying with a card or by direct debit. They are allowing the banks to release the money four days ahead, so why should they not get the benefit of that? It is a cheaper way of paying. It is wrong to say that this form of progress should be held up.
The other thing I would say is that I find it slightly patronising of older people. I chair a housing association for retired people. I was staggered when we did a survey for our annual conference, where the average age was the late 70s. We asked people whether they used IT to do a certain number of things. Some 80% said that they used the internet as a phone because they were using Skype, which is cheaper. Some 80% said that they bought tickets and booked their holidays on the internet because it is cheaper. What really shocked me as someone who worked in the newspaper industry and who thought that newspapers would always have a future because retired people would always want to read a newspaper was that 80% of them get their news from the internet. We cannot ignore these changes. What we should be concentrating on here is what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was talking about in the debate last week. We want regular paper records to be sent to customers who are using the internet process as well as to people who pay by cheque. But please do not let us say that we are going to go back to the past by letting the banks hold on to our money for four days when we can pay directly and get a cheaper price by doing so. Retired people can get that benefit as well. We must not end that progress.