Draft Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

More an intervention than a perverse interference, I would say, but the hon. Member is entitled to his view, which I respect. He may decide, as we have done on this subject, that we should agree to disagree.

Finally, once a work notice is received by the union, the trade union should ensure that it does not do other things to undermine the steps that it takes to meet the reasonable steps requirement. Actions taken to undermine the steps could include, for example, communicating with members whom the union knows is identified in a work notice, to induce them to strike. Where the trade union becomes aware of such actions to undermine the steps, the union should take swift action to negate any actions of union officials or members that seek to undermine the steps that the union has taken or will take to comply with the requirement in section 234E of the 1992 Act.

If a trade union failed to take reasonable steps as required by section 234E, that would mean that the strike is not protected under section 219 of the 1992 Act. As I have said, a court or tribunal could take the code into account in deciding whether reasonable steps had been taken. If the union protection is lost, the employer could seek damages from a trade union or an injunction to prevent the unprotected strike. Further, an employee taking part in a strike would lose the automatic protection from unfair dismissal under section 238A of the 1992 Act.

It is important to stress that the underlying requirement for a trade union is to act reasonably. For example, failure by a trade union to identify a small number of members, and the consequent missing out of those members from subsequent steps, may not constitute a failure in carrying out the overall obligation to take reasonable steps, as long as the trade union made a reasonable attempt to identify such members. Similarly, where the union takes steps to send promptly a compliance notice to members identified in a work notice, an accidental failure to reach a small number of identified members is unlikely to be a failure to take reasonable steps. In those scenarios, that would be for a court to determine, based on the facts of each case.

The code of practice under the Committee’s consideration has been designed to balance the objectives and benefits of the 2023 Act with the potential burdens of undertaking the reasonable steps, while providing guidance about a clear recommended route for trade unions to maintain their protections during strike action. It will help to provide clarity to employers and union members on what to expect leading up to, and on the day of, strike action where a work notice has been given to secure a minimum service level. It will also provide a greater level of assurance for trade union members who have been required to work as part of a work notice and will be encouraged to do so by the trade union, and therefore increase the likelihood that minimum service levels will be achieved.

If Parliament approves the code, it will be issued and brought into effect by the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure set out in section 204 of the 1992 Act.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give us a ballpark figure for how many trade unions and how many private sector employers have been engaged in the development of the code?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

As we know and as the Minister said, the clause sets out the meanings of various terms used in the Bill. Throughout the debates in Committee, we have raised fundamental questions on several points where we feel that the interpretation of the Bill requires further confirmation. I welcome the Minister’s clarity on a number of those issues. In the rest of the clauses in the group, we see clarity around financial provisions, regulation, extent and the short title—all as is fairly standard.

We all understand the need for this Bill and welcome many of the provisions. That is why Labour has been generally supportive as we have proceeded through Committee. I hope we can also agree that the measures in the Bill must come into force as soon as is reasonably possible. That is particularly important when we know that the digital markets unit has essentially been operating in shadow form for a number of years. It must be compelled to draw on the lessons learned and able to act meaningfully from day one. All things said, we obviously support this grouping, and we look forward to the Third Reading of the Bill before supporting its progression to the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 311 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 312 to 315 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 316

Commencement

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 316, page 221, line 25, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 245 to 273 come into force from April 2026.”

This amendment provides an explicit implementation period for the subscription contract provisions.

The amendment suggests the need for an explicit implementation period for the subscription contract provisions debated earlier in clauses 245 to 273. That comes about for several reasons. The Government say and Ministers tell us that they have consulted businesses, but I note that the Federation of Small Businesses has raised concerns about the provisions in the Bill, including timing and coverage, as have Sky and other larger organisations. There seems to be a concern that there is no specific time or date. In an earlier sitting, we heard the Minister tell us that some provisions would be immediate and some provisions would be for new contracts, not for existing contracts, but business organisations and representative organisations were unaware of the Government’s plans, despite the need to prepare to implement provisions and allow for the costs of new regulations to take effect on businesses.

Businesses have said that the Bill goes further than the Government’s initial consultation expected, including on things such as clauses 245 to 273 and reminders. I think that this correspondence went to all members of the Committee, but Sky suggests that

“measures have shifted away from a high level, principles-based approach”—

which was in the consultation initially—

“with government opting instead for highly prescriptive requirements on the face of the Bill itself. This change was made without any substantive consultation with businesses, despite the material difference such an approach makes to compliance and implementation costs.”

That is from Sky, which has 12,000 jobs focused on this issue, so it is in a better position than smaller companies to get on with that work. Its concern is that the Bill does not do what the Government said it would do, and that new costs will be imposed.

It is not just the FSB that has raised concerns about the costs. Sky said that the Government’s impact assessment suggests that the new requirements

“will cost UK business £400 million to set up and £1.2 billion in the first year alone.”

This is not a benign set of requirements in legislation; it is a costly endeavour. The amendment seeks to give UK businesses space to prepare to implement the provisions and absorb some of the costs, which would not have been in their business plans if they were set some time ago.

In an earlier sitting, I asked the Minister about the timeframe, and the amendment attempts to achieve some clarity about that. It would be good to hear how the Government will address the concerns of the business community, which has been surprised—let me put it that way—by what the Government have come forward with, in terms of the level of the measures, the fact that the requirements are on the face of the Bill, and the lack of a timeframe to prepare to deliver them.

I politely suggest that Ministers take a bit more time to work with the business community before the Bill goes any further to ensure UK businesses are ready, are not hit with further costs, and are prepared to implement the provisions of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment, which is very sensibly thought out. It proposes that the new rules for subscription contracts come into effect from April 2026. I very much admire his wish to balance the needs of businesses and consumers; that is exactly what we should be doing. Competitive markets that rely on business investment are good for consumers too, so there is a delicate balance to strike.

The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that businesses have clarity about the start date and know when the new rules will come into effect so they can make appropriate preparations. We have listened very closely to the needs of business. I met Sky and others that will be affected by the change to hear their concerns.

The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal goes further than other measures set out previously. They do not go as far as his Front-Bench colleagues would like them to go, in terms of cost to business. We believe we have struck the right balance.

Our opinion about notifications differs from that of the various providers that have made submissions. We think notifications are important because we want users to understand the contracts they are in and the methods of exiting them. The basic principle is that it should be as easy to exit a contract as it is to enter one. Some providers still want to require the customer to ring a call centre. We are having discussions, but we think we have struck a reasonable balance.

There are certainly issues relating to cooling-off periods, which the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed previously. We want to ensure that consumers cannot game the system by entering a contract, benefiting from it by downloading lots of information or content, watching it, and then cancelling without paying. We are dealing with that through secondary legislation.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the cost to business. Yes, there is a cost to business: the expectation is that the annual business impact will be about £170 million a year, but there are establishment costs too. It is not exactly a zero-sum game, because we want competition to develop through the provisions in the Bill. That will be good for consumers and businesses, so we believe there will be a net gain from this legislation. We want to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. Businesses should do well, but not at the expense of unfairly treated consumers. We seek to strike that balance.

[Neil Coyle]

If this is about balance and fairness, businesses are right to say that there is an annual reminder system for other regulated services, such as broadband and telephones. The Bill proposes a six-monthly reminder system for new services, so is the Minister saying that other services should be better regulated and that the reminder system should be more frequent to help consumers get fairness, or is he saying that businesses are being treated better in some circumstances than the Bill will allow? I am confused about which bit of Government policy he does not support in that domain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On a point of order, Dame Maria. I put on the record my thanks to all the Clerks and the many people who worked on the Bill, including all the officials and my private office, for doing a tremendous job. I thank Opposition Members for their constructive dialogue.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Dame Maria. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam agreed in our proceedings to send a letter and told the Committee that a letter had been sent. No letter has been received and no letter is in the Library. Will the Minister please send the letter as promised?

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think there is just one key point that the hon. Lady asked me to address, which is about other types of coercion. Looking at the definition with regard to practices, clause 220 talks about “coercion or undue influence”. Under subsection (3),

“‘undue influence’ means exploiting a position of power in relation to consumers so as to apply pressure in any way”.

I think that covers the definition, as she requested.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

[Neil Coyle]

I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 217, page 146, line 11, at end insert—

“(c) a person marketing P’s goods for sale online.”

This amendment makes a person marketing goods online a trader, for the purposes of this Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I appreciate the continued spaghetti western analogies. In my case, “Pale Rider” might be a more apt example, as obviously my demographics mean that I am pale, stale and male, but we are keen to ensure that we have a proper shoot-out with the people the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark describes. I am totally onside with the vast majority of what he says. He knows we need to make sure we take the right kind of action in this area, and his amendments would add provisions related to product safety to regulate the sale of dangerous and counterfeit goods in online marketplaces. Existing UK product law is clear: all products must be safe, including those sold online. However, we recognise the challenge the growth of online marketplaces has created for how we deliver product safety in a global economy. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: these are not just UK-based problems: this is a global problem. As he knows, marketplaces operate around the globe and other jurisdictions are also seeking to tackle the issue.

I hosted a roundtable with major online marketplaces in April and was clear that, in addition to their current duties, they must do much more to keep unsafe products off their sites, including removing third-party sellers who supply unsafe goods. That point was mentioned on Second Reading of the Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill, as the hon. Gentleman referenced just now. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which I visited in Teddington, is following up with a programme of test purchases. There I saw at first hand some of the potential products sold online, such as toy magnets that do not comply with UK product standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has done fantastic campaigning in that area on button batteries. There is much we need to do. This is not just a consumer safety problem: it is about creating a fair and level playing field for UK retailers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Argos and Amazon, but I would add our local high-street electrical stores, which have also been disadvantaged by online marketplaces being able to operate in the way they do.

[Neil Coyle]

I do not remember any western in which a sheriff held a roundtable. In terms of the outcome, what is the pace at which counterfeit or dangerous goods will be removed? That is the concern for consumers. Even if I buy something, discover that it is shoddy and report it through the process in the Bill, there is still a significant gap in time before something is taken off. The takedown power is crucial to prevent further hundreds, thousands or millions of that product being sold or marketed to people when it is known to be dangerous or faulty and could put lives at risk.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I entirely agree. We do not think the marketplaces are going far enough. It is a key phrase that the likes of Amazon, Wish and so on just see themselves as marketplaces rather than distributors. Our point is that they are distributors. The key thing is making sure that is properly defined in law. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out some of the percentages. That is the work done by the OPSS, defining that between 60% and 80% of the products it sampled were unsafe. That is clearly and completely wrong.

[Neil Coyle]

There is no answer in that as to the timespan.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am coming to that.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister is coming to it, but the takedown power is the crucial bit to do that and it is what the OPSS, which he refers to, says it wants.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman allows me to go through my speech, I might be able to give some answers to his points. We are on exactly the same page on this and we have to get this right. He talks about getting the analysis right and raised a different analogy of where he considers we may have got that wrong in the past. It is important we get this right. From our perspective, the product safety route is the right way to do this. The whole product safety framework will be reformed, including online sales, and that holistic review of product safety, taking existing obligations into account—we believe there are distributor obligations—is the most appropriate vehicle for meeting concerns about unsafe goods sold online.

[Neil Coyle]

The shadow Minister also asked when the product safety review will take place.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very shortly. I just answered the shadow Minister; there is no prolonging this issue from my perspective. We are keen to get on with this but want to make sure the review is in the right place and the right shape when it happens. We want it to happen very soon.

The forthcoming consultation will include proposals to ensure that shopping online is as safe as on the high street and that there is a fairer playing field for law-abiding businesses. We anticipate publishing these proposals soon and look forward to continuing engagement with our stakeholders to inform and shape our proposals.

Amendment 124 would give powers to the Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards to require the removal of marketing material for counterfeit and dangerous products online. We believe, however, that extensive enforcement powers are already available. For example, when a trader markets misleading or faulty goods online, enforcers including the CMA and trading standards can apply to the court for an enforcement order to stop and prohibit the marketing and sale of the offending goods under part 3 of the Bill. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me get to the point where I think he wants me to get to, that will be the point made in the letter.

Part 3 of the Bill gives the CMA the power to impose an online interface order against the infringer or a third party. That type of order or notice may require the removal or alteration of online content on a website that gives access to or promotes the offending goods. The hon. Gentleman’s point was about similar powers for other enforcement bodies such as trading standards. As I said to him, however, in a letter that I think he received yesterday, that is something I am keen to explore, and will do so over the summer. I will give him a final chance to intervene, if he wants, and then I will conclude.

[Neil Coyle]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his reassurance that this will be looked at over the summer. As things stand, the Government are saying—the Minister has just said—that a product could cause a fire and potentially a fatality, but still the process would be to report it through a particular agency and possibly take court action, rather than what the regulators want to do and customers want to see, which is the take-down of the item to prevent any further dangerous incident or potential fatalities. I hope that the Minister gets to a point where that immediate power will be available.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is why I will look at it over the summer. It is not provided for in the Bill, but he makes a good point and I am keen to explore the options. We will come back to the House at some point to report what we will do in this space. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw his amendments.

[Neil Coyle]

With that reassurance of looking at this further over the summer and to improve on where things stand, I will take the Minister at his word. The idea that we can support everything in a product safety review that will start we know not when feels a bit like missing the bus—or missing the stagecoach, to stick with the analogy. The powers need to be in the Bill to ensure that when the product safety review is done, the vehicle is already available to enable dangerous or counterfeit goods to be removed, but given his reassurance, I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 217, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18

Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and the hon. Member for Gordon have already made some excellent points, so I will be brief.

Amendment 125 would add fake reviews to the list of banned practices. No customer should be hoodwinked by the deceitful practice of submitting a fake review. Fundamentally, many customers see fake reviews as fraud, which is the fastest-growing crime. Our police services are overstretched and sadly, under this Government, they do not have the resources to tackle fraud. The amendment examines alternative routes to securing action to tackle a problem that is leading to dangerous circumstances, as has been outlined.

Amendment 125 would provide a stronger power than the one proposed, and it has been called for by organisations representing British customers and responsible British businesses. It would be better for good business, better for customers and better for ensuring that standards were upheld. The charity Electrical Safety First, which is based in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, has said that in one of its investigations 93% of products bought from online marketplaces were unsafe—93%! In some significant part, that is down to fake reviews imposing a false legitimacy on goods. People buy because they believe other people have bought and have had an enjoyable experience or got the product they sought.

My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has already provided examples of the need to protect consumers, and I draw the attention of the Committee these live examples, which are happening right now. “A portable heater” was on eBay and people were saying it was fine, but it had

“easy access to live parts with 240 volts running through the heating element, posing”

what ESF called

“an imminent risk to life.”

Another example is a

“‘water-proof’ extension lead… on Amazon.”

Guess what? There are

“no water-proof capabilities”

and this

“presents a significant risk of electric shock. This item has already been recalled as unsafe by the Office for Product Safety and Standards”.

A combination of the takedown power and the removal of fake reviews that claimed that these products were okay and good to use would be a significant step forward—one that, sadly, is not in the Bill.

One last example is the bargain beauty products—not something I buy often for myself—on eBay that had no fuse in the plugs. That is how dangerous they were. Those goods, known to be dangerous, are still online. Removing fake reviews might help to prevent people from buying such shoddy items, but removing the goods altogether should be the fundamental aim. I politely suggest that the Minister adds ESF and specific consumer groups such as Which? to his round of pending meetings, to ensure that the Bill is improved—and to tackle the problem that he previously acknowledged existed. He likened himself earlier to “Pale Rider”. He may think he is “Pale Rider”, but I am not convinced that he has turned up on a horse, or even on a pony. Given that there is no baron here, it is more as though he is on a rocking horse.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure that I can take that analogy any further. I think we are all in agreement. They say that the art of originality is to remember what you have heard but forget where you heard it. The Opposition say that we are stealing their good ideas, but obviously we committed some time ago to taking action in this area. I am not averse to taking some of the good ideas that we hear from the Opposition from time to time, but we also have to ensure that we reject the many bad ideas we hear from them in debates.

The Government agree that legislation to tackle fake reviews should be strengthened. We anticipate doing so by adding to the list of banned practices. However, it is important to get the details of those proposals right. That includes defining what we mean by fake reviews and how “reasonable and proportionate” steps will be understood. Similarly, we want those rules to encompass the manipulation of reviews that may harm consumers, which also needs detailed work with stakeholders to define. For example, the issue is not just about people trying to boost reviews, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston stated; it is also to do with people removing negative reviews inappropriately, which might affect ratings on review sites. The Government will therefore be consulting on fake reviews during the passage of the Bill to ensure that these rules work as intended and are clear for businesses. We will be doing that shortly, in the autumn.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talked about ESF and Which?. I have spoken to both organisations and met them regularly. In fact, one of my first jobs in my ministerial role was to speak at an Electrical Safety First conference. On that note, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I have a few brief supplementary comments, further to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. I just want to point out an anomaly and the problematic nature of the wording of the Bill, which I hope the Government will re-examine before they go further.

Amendment 126 would expand the definition of “invitation to purchase” to cases in which the information provided to a consumer covers the characteristics of a product, but not its price. That might sound counterintuitive, as it did to me when I first went through this with organisations, but it would expand the goods and services covered by the legislation. That is important, because the use of “price” in the wording of the Bill could prohibit action against a rogue trader. The existing wording might stop the Government meeting the aims that they are setting out to achieve.

The suggestion is that the specific requirement that the price be covered, if that is not the price paid, will potentially prevent action from being taken against a trader who deliberately advertises a price, but then changes it. An example might be where someone arranges for a person to come and fix a car part, a boiler or a pipe leak, and that person then arrives and says, “The product you’ve looked at online is not compatible with your boiler,”—or their fittings, their car or whatever it might be—“but guess what: I’ve got a different one in the van that’s a bit cheaper,” or a bit more expensive, “but will do the job better for you.”

By making a slight change to the wording of the Bill to remove the words “and its price” on page 150, amendment 126 would deal with that kind of rogue practice, which is out there and which has been raised by trading standards. The fear among the bodies that are trying to secure greater action against rogue traders is that the existing wording of the Bill allows wiggle room and will let the dodgy practices continue. I hope that airing that specific, possibly niche concern today will give us greater time to capture it and ensure that the Bill does not preclude action against rogue traders where specific prices are agreed up front but that is not the deal that takes place, because someone pays for a cheaper or even a more expensive alternative that does the same job.

Having flagged that concern, I hope that the Government will look again at the wording and at how they will meet their overall aim, which I support.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is an interesting point. We took the decision to strengthen the existing provisions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in relation to invitations to purchase by removing the need for enforcers to prove that the transactional decision test has been met. This significantly increases the criminal liability of unscrupulous traders.

Amendment 126 would expand the definition of an invitation to purchase still further to cases in which information about products is presented to consumers without a price shown. We are concerned that that would expand the definition too far. Moreover, other provisions in chapter 1 of the Bill will achieve a similar aim: they will prohibit traders from making misleading statements or omissions in respect of all commercial practices. We feel that that covers this issue. However, I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, certainly based on the evidence he has received, which I am happy to look at.

Amendment 127 would require that information as to whether a third-party seller or online marketplace is a trader or a consumer be added to the list of material information in an invitation to purchase. We have the same aim. Clause 222(2)(c) will require

“the identity of the trader and the identity of any other person on whose behalf the trader is acting”

to be disclosed. Moreover, subsections (2)(d) and (e) will require a range of contact details to be provided to consumers about who they may be buying from.

Accordingly, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. The clauses restate and update the Enterprise Act 2002. Clause 165 sets out which courts in the UK have jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for consumer protection orders. The globalised nature of modern business means that a trader with UK consumers may well not have a place of business or carry on business in any part of the UK. The clause provides that in those circumstances the relevant consumer’s place of domicile will determine which UK court has jurisdiction.

Clause 166 will extend the effect of consumer protection orders made by a court with jurisdiction in one part of the UK to other parts of the UK, as if the order were made in those other parts. That eliminates any jurisdictional gap within the UK and restates and consolidates relevant sections of the Enterprise Act 2002.

Clause 167 will allow evidence from previous court proceedings to be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving that infringing conduct has occurred under this part. Convictions in the criminal courts and any relevant findings in the civil courts are admissible to prove that a person has engaged in an infringing practice or has been an accessory to such a practice.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the Minister could pinpoint where in the Bill’s impact assessment documents the estimates are for the number of cases that the Government expect under this legislation, the average time for a case to be heard and the amount that the Government will be resourcing courts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I did not intend to speak, but I want to press the Minister on the approach that the Government are choosing to adopt in this group of clauses. What the Bill intends is welcome, as we have heard from witnesses and from elsewhere. Fundamentally, customers want quick redress, and businesses want justice and the removal of counterfeit or fake products that undermine their licences and appropriate trading. The Government’s approach—specifically in these clauses, heading for the courts—ignores the backlog that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has spoken about.

On Tuesday, we heard from the Minister for London that the Government did not have an agreement with Citizens Advice, or funding set aside for Citizens Advice, to support people to take a case through the courts. I was promised some further information that has not arrived yet; I do not know whether it is in the snail mail or the Minister’s crayons ran out or something, but I hope it is coming.

As has been raised this morning, there is no information yet from the Government about their expectations for how many cases will be taken to court, how that will have an impact on the backlog, or what the cost will be to Government or individuals. The reason people will end up at Citizens Advice is that they are seeking legal information; Citizens Advice needs to be resourced to support people and to take cases. In connection with this group of clauses, we are not hearing what the Government intend to do to support cases that need to be taken.

And, of course, it takes time. In the time that someone is going through the process—potentially for months and months—products that are dangerous to individuals might still be online. I am keen to hear from the Minister what will happen in the interim. What is to stop sellers and online marketplaces continuing to retail products that are dangerous to individuals or are counterfeit goods?

We will come to this next week, I think, but there is an alternative: the take-down power suggested by trading standards. With what is out there currently and what the Bill intends, we hear lots of analogies about the wild west, but it all feels a bit as if, instead of getting a Clint Eastwood figure to address the problems, we are getting a Deputy Dawg. Will the Minister say why the Government chose a costly court process—costly to Government and to individuals, as well as more time-consuming—rather than a specific measure that allows for a body already set out in a schedule to require the removal of information on products that are known to be faulty or counterfeit?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On resourcing, the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark were both right to mention the courts backlog. If my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, committed to write to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will do that. It has not come across my desk yet, but there will be no delay when it does, short of ensuring that it answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

One thing to say about that, of course, is that the fact that we are putting in place a direct enforcement regime may well ease the pressures on the courts, because the CMA can take action without recourse to them. That should help by ensuring that not all such cases need to go to court.

On private enforcement, and how it would work, it could happen on the basis of an enforcer’s application, or on the Secretary of State’s initiative after consultation with a proposed enforcer. I think that the only private designated enforcer currently is Which?. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston.

On the hon. Lady’s points about a primary authority, a primary authority can be a local authority, it could provide information about the business to enforcing authorities and help direct their efforts to improve regulatory efficiencies.

On greenwashing, she is right that the CMA is conducting an investigation into ASOS, Boohoo and Asda. We have the green claims code to try to ensure that there are standards in this area. The Government policy in this area, of course, is that misleading information is already a breach of existing consumer laws. The CMA has issued guidance to help businesses to comply with existing obligations in that green claims code.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked about product safety. Rather than Deputy Dawg, I would use the analogy of Clint Eastwood in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”. We are working very hard on this, in terms of product safety. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, which I work very closely with, comes under my remit. It has put a huge amount of time and effort into market surveillance and ensuring that products online are safe.

We have real concerns over whether that is the case, of course, and we recently met with Amazon to discuss that issue. We have also met with eBay, Wish and other platforms to point out their responsibilities. As far as we are concerned, as distributors they have responsibilities to proactively remove unsafe content. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I have said this to him before—we intend to look at that again through the product safety review, which we are about to announce, and that should clarify those responsibilities and ensure that unsafe products do not hit the marketplace in the first place.

I take the points on takedown powers very seriously, and I heard the same evidence from trading standards that the hon. Gentleman heard. We are keen to look at that matter and, again, it might involve another layer of enforcement so that we can then try to prevent those unsafe products from hitting marketplaces across the UK. Trading standards has the capacity to do that for individual websites, but I understand that there are wider concerns regarding other areas of online activity that we are keen to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Within clause 181 there is the option for someone who is potentially identified as selling rogue or dangerous products to use a reasonable excuse. Can the Minister better define what a reasonable excuse might be? Companies and individuals could choose to prolong the timeframe involved in order to sell more goods that are hooky while the process is followed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said earlier, there are measures to ensure that any representations are given earnestly. A reasonable excuse might be that the trader was not aware of some of the difficulties surrounding the product. There may be various circumstances. When implementing and enforcing legislation, we always try to ensure that the CMA can apply discretion in different circumstances where an honest mistake has occurred.

[Neil Coyle]

To be clear, I am not looking for a list of what companies or individuals might use as an excuse for selling dangerous goods; I wondered whether the Minister would set out the timeframe, as the clause, and associated clauses, are not clear about how long companies and individuals get to provide information or remove dangerous products. What is there to prevent someone from saying, for example, “We have this product on our online marketplace, but it is manufactured in another country. We have been trying to contact the manufacturer, and it has taken some time to identify the specific individual.”? In that time, of course, the individual could have sold more counterfeit and dangerous goods, or have changed their email and other addresses in order to avoid the removal of their products online.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are now getting into the weeds of this. We have similar views about online marketplaces and their responsibilities. In our view, their responsibility as a distributor requires them to ensure that products are safe before they are placed on the marketplace in the first place. There should be no excuse for a distributor not checking the validity of a standards marking, for example. That is a responsibility that I have discussed with various platforms. We want to get to the position where products are verified before they enter the marketplace, through checks and balances. Rather than working reactively, platforms should work proactively in such instances, but part of that crosses over into work that we are doing in the product safety review, which we have discussed previously and will, I am sure, discuss again.

If the CMA is satisfied that a breach occurred without a reasonable excuse it can impose a penalty. That ensures that there are meaningful consequences to breaching an undertaking, to deter unscrupulous traders. Clause 182 states the types of penalties and the maximum penalty amounts that can be imposed by the CMA through a final breach of undertakings enforcement notice. The penalty imposed can be the higher of a fixed amount up to £150,000 or 5% of total turnover. A daily rate penalty can be up to £15,000 or 5% of the total value of the daily turnover, whichever is higher, accruing over the days in which non-compliance continues. Both a fixed amount and a daily rate penalty may be imposed, but they must not exceed the fixed amounts that I have just referenced. I hope that hon. Members will support Government amendment 60, and clauses 177 to 182 standing part of the Bill.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Noyona, you mentioned that you felt that the CMA should not be the only enforcement body that oversees the legislation. Who else do you think has the experience and expertise to perform some of those significant obligations?

Noyona Chundur: There is a heightened risk, Minister, if the new direct enforcement powers sit only with the CMA. Ultimately, the purpose of those powers is to be much more agile, flexible and responsive to consumer detriment in the market. Is there a heightened risk that enforcement will default to the CMA because perhaps it may deliver a solution that is much more agile and responsive and much more in keeping with the pace of detriment in the marketplace compared with a courts-based system? The sector regulators and trading standards could therefore have the same or similar powers. The question is about agility and responsiveness to detriment, which is exploding in the marketplace. We see it increasingly, particularly in digital markets, which evolve so quickly. That is our perspective.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q The Bill aims to protect consumers and challenge unfair competition online, but one significant disadvantage for British companies and consumers is counterfeit goods sold on platforms such as Amazon. For example, the British company that holds a licence to make Peppa Pig toys has the trademark and the patent, and meets the standards, including safety standards, but counterfeit goods, particularly those imported from other countries such as China, are dangerous and do not meet safety conditions. Will the Bill help end that situation for consumers and companies here? Is it an opportunity to do so or, if not, is it amendable to achieve that?

Peter Eisenegger: The Bill has clauses that allow us to address that in terms of, “Has the information put before the consumer been complete and accurate?” If something does not comply with safety standards, that has been omitted. It is a question of interpretation that we would have to nail down and make clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Mr Wynn, you mentioned schedule 18 and not adding to the list without proper evidence. Is it your position then that we should not at this point in time add fake reviews to that list and that we should go through a proper process of consultation before we decide what to do about that?

Graham Wynn: The view is, as I said, that we do not want to see what I call knee-jerk reactions to Daily Mail items that are politically sensitive or are political problems. The obvious answer is to say, “Let’s add it to schedule 18 as a banned practice.” It really is important that the schedule and what is in it is clear, clearly understood and that we do not add or subtract from it just on the basis of needing to get over a political problem, for example.

You can make sure that you do proper consultation and all that sort of thing, but we can understand why the Government would want to be able to add to it more quickly—obviously, primary legislation takes a while. In Europe, we certainly argued against Governments or the Commission being able to add to it willy-nilly. We were keen to keep it as something that had to be put in the directive originally. On balance, we would rather it was debated fully and that it amended legislation. Alternatively, you could decide to make changes once a year, say, rather than as you go along. That might be an alternative answer to the danger of a knee-jerk reaction.

[Neil Coyle]

Q I want to see the wild west tackled. As the Bill is drafted, will the consumer detriment provisions be sufficient to tackle producers or suppliers of products that reach UK consumers via platforms such as Amazon, or do the platforms need tackling for responsibility and enforcement action?

Graham Wynn: I should say that Amazon is a member of the BRC, so I preface my comments with that. Amazon does tell me that it is using AI and other means of ensuring there are not fake reviews, and that it takes as much responsibility as it can for product safety on its sites and for illegal products. Clearly others have a different view and think that it would be possible to go further and Amazon should be legally obliged to take more responsibility.

Again, throughout the Bill, the issue will be resources for enforcement, as it is in general. Be it fake reviews, subscription traps or the responsibilities of marketplaces and platforms, unless there is real, effective enforcement, people get the impression that something has been done without really having the rights that the Government say they have—when I say people, I mean consumers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q On that very point, it is something that we are keen to tackle—and Mr Coyle is right to raise it, as he has done several times today. You have talked about an evidence-based approach to this. You will be aware that we will shortly launch the product safety review, which will tackle some of these issues, including the clarification of online marketplaces’ responsibilities in terms of ensuring the safety of products. Do you think that is the right place to deal with this, rather than the Bill?

Graham Wynn: Yes. I think it needs to be done, but without committing us, we would expect it to be done in the context of a product safety review and how you are going to deal with product safety issues in the future. It needs a thorough examination, including the role of marketplaces, their general obligations and what is practical and proportionate. I would not add that to this Bill now, because it requires more of an assessment and consideration than would be possible.

Catch-up Premium

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Neil Coyle

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

This Government’s litany of let-downs for our children started last March by locking schools down late. That delay by Ministers has cost lives, as we have the highest death toll in Europe, and cost jobs, as we have the worst damage to any major economy. The litany of damage continued with June with the first U-turn on free school meals and the Prime Minister only giving in after Marcus Rashford’s brilliant campaign and support from the Labour party.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Coyle]

No.

Then we had the exam grades controversy, with Ministers carping about the SNP in Scotland before being forced to abandon their own algorithm after it caused damage for young people in our country. In September, we saw the launch of the kickstart scheme with much fanfare and the claim that it would create 200,000 jobs for young people. Well, nine months later the figure is about 8% of that. Of the 1,240 unemployed young people in my constituency, kickstart has helped 11, or 1%, using the Department for Work and Pensions’ figure, which is inflated to include schoolchildren on work placements.

In October, the Prime Minister humiliated his own MPs when he forced them to vote against free school meal provision and then changed his mind and gave in, again, just a few days later. In January, we saw the utter farce of schools returning for one day after Ministers again ignored advice, causing chaos for schools that have done so much to try to ensure that our children had a quality education throughout this crisis. It goes on. In January, we had Chartwells, the Government’s contractors, going viral with pictures showing how poor the quality and quantity of the food parcels being provided was, causing ridicule for the Government. Then, in February, we had the devious cut to the pupil premium, leaving 1,000 children in Southwark actually facing a loss this year. The total loss to Southwark schools is over £1.2 million—a cut.

Now we have Ministers rejecting their own commissioner’s recovery plans and offering less than 10% of what he claimed was required to equip our children for the future. Instead they offered a derisory package of £50 per child, compared with £1,600 per child in the United States or £2,500 per child in the Netherlands. That pitiful offer says a lot about how poorly this Government value our children, our young people, and the future of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The point I would like to make in this debate is that we should not fall into the trap of thinking this is all about money. There are factors behind success and achievement other than money, and it is debilitating to think that is the only thing that counts.

Before I go on to illustrate what I am talking about, I would just pick up on the comment the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) made that the UK has the worst death rate in Europe. There is no doubt that the UK has been hit pretty hard, but there are actually 16 countries with a worse rate than the UK in the world, including six across Europe—Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belgium and Italy. It is important that we do look at the actual facts. He is a far more friendly chap outside the Chamber, particularly in Strangers Bar, than he is in here.

[Neil Coyle]

It is unfair of the hon. Member to reveal that I am nicer outside the Chamber.

The hon. Member is actually using a different figure. He is using a per capita model, not the raw death toll. We have the highest death toll in Europe by number of population overall.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is what the hon. Member said, and I apologise, but I think it is important to look at the context, and I think the per capita figure is very relevant.

The other point I would like to make is about the motion, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) made this point very well. It does endanger candid advice if the Opposition are simply going to request all the information and all the debate behind the scenes. Actually, I do not agree with him on one aspect—we would still get candid advice; it just would not be written down, and I do not really think that is very useful. I know it has been some time—I do not mean this rudely—since the Opposition have been in government, but the reality is that there is bound to be frank and open discussion behind the scenes about different policies on different things. I do not think it is right that simply getting at all the debate behind the scenes will be useful on this particular issue.

The Government have put a package together. As has been said, they may well need more money to address this issue fully. Nevertheless, 6 million packages of 15 hours of tuition is quite a significant investment, and no doubt there will be other things coming along as well. A number of Members have asked why we did not simply follow Sir Kevan Collins’s recommendation to commit £15 billion. That is obviously a matter for the Government, but I have heard the Opposition say on a number of occasions that there would be a £100 billion payback from that £15 billion. I do not know whether the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), has used that figure, but I have heard the Leader of the Opposition use it. Having been in business quite a long time, I have had various department heads come through my door on lots of occasions and say, “I’ve got this great idea to spend x amount of money, and it will result in this kind of payback.” People can make anything look good on a spreadsheet. The Opposition cannot guarantee that the £15 billion would have a £100 billion effect.

The reality is that we have to choose. In government, we have to choose, and of course if we do not choose—I have heard this in so many debates over the last few years—we have the Opposition calling again and again for more spending. I think somebody should really add up all those numbers, because I am sure it would amount to trillions of pounds of spending. We simply cannot go on like that. We have at some point to try to balance the books. I do not think that is something either party has done that well in government, on the basis that very rarely—I think in only five years out of the last 40—have any Government balanced the books, and we have to make difficult choices to do that.

My final point, in the 30 seconds I have left, is to look at what happened in North Yorkshire. I said that it is not all about money, and it was disappointing that our county council took a number of weeks to facilitate online learning in many of the schools across North Yorkshire. It was simply wrong to take eight weeks to develop a policy on online learning using Zoom and the like. However, schools such as Malton School—a very good local authority maintained school—had already put in place a package of support using iPads. It had done that years before, so it was able to do this. Excellent teachers can find solutions without simply having lots of Government money thrown at a problem.