Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Jo Swinson and Nick Smith

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I appreciate that her intention might not be to force people to use their names, but unfortunately that is what the Lords amendment says. Many organisations would wish to cancel tickets if they knew exactly which tickets were being resold, and that would not be in consumers’ interests.

The amendment could result in the cancelling of tickets and potential ID theft, which would have the common impact of incentivising the movement of sales to other, less secure websites, perhaps overseas, or to the street touts of whom people already have experience. Having more safety in online marketplaces that behave more responsibly has to be better than pushing things on to foreign, unregulated websites or insecure websites. We want to make sure that consumers are protected. The touts we see outside venues do not offer that protection—not even close to it.

[Nick Smith]

The Minister says that the amendment is too prescriptive. Does she not recognise that the internet spivs who use these botnets are rigging the market and putting up prices for consumers? What is she going to do about these internet spivs who are harvesting tickets against the interests of consumers?

[Jo Swinson]

I will come to enforcement, because I accept that there are issues that need to be looked at, but I want to complete my explanation of the difficulties with amendment 12.

There is a real risk that introducing these additional, more stringent information requirements would go beyond the provisions set out in the consumer rights directive, which EU law does not allow us to do. Compliance with EU law might be further harmed in relation to the technical standards and regulations directive. To comply with that directive, the amendment would have to be notified to the Commission at least three months before the Bill was due to finish its passage through Parliament, meaning that it remained in draft form during that standstill period. We have clearly run out of time for such steps to be taken now. The consequence, which I know the proposers of the amendment would not want, is that amendment 12 could end up being unenforceable if it were passed in its current form.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Nick Smith

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T5. May I press the Minister on payday lenders? Will the Government really get those companies to make it much easier for consumers to understand the cost of those awful payday loans?

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that consumer awareness is vital. Some of the people who take out such loans would be much better off with an entirely different financial product. That is why advertising is such an important element in tackling the issue. The Government are working with the Advertising Standards Authority and we will also work with the Financial Conduct Authority, which will take over those powers from next year, to ensure that we clamp down on advertising that misleads people and lures them into taking out products that are not right for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jo Swinson and Nick Smith

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Three hundred and sixty of my constituents have told me that they value our local post offices. May I press the Minister to allow the post office network to allow the DVLA to have that contract for the future? Why will she not commit to doing that?

[Jo Swinson]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), that is a live procurement contract—I hope the hon. Gentleman also understands that. However, he makes his point clearly. His points are on the record and it has been noted that he is standing up for his local post offices.