Horizon Scandal: Psychological Support Services

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dobbs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what programmes are in place or are planned to ensure the families of sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal have access to appropriate psychological support services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

Support for postmasters and postmistresses is provided when needed as part of the compensation offer; for example, money to fund cognitive behavioural therapy. There are no programmes in place for the families of sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon scandal. Claimants can claim for the wide-ranging impacts on their lives. This can be larger due to witnessing the wider impact on their family members. We recognise that seeing family members suffer, as many of these families have done, has been traumatic.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer and pay tribute to the very hard work that he and his colleagues are putting into this issue.

Going back to the issue of family, particularly children, is my noble friend aware of the story of Millie-Jo Castleton, who wrote to the public inquiry detailing the extraordinary, terrible time that she has had during this terrible saga? She has been abused, marginalised, isolated, spat at in the street and told that she comes from a family of liars and criminals. Inevitably, her health has suffered tremendously. She was eight when this terrible saga started. She is now in her late 20s. I understand the accounting principles behind my noble friend’s Answer but it is accounting principles that got us here in the first place. Is it still not possible to weave into those accounting principles some compassion and common sense, and hold out some additional psychological and emotional support to those poor people such as Millie-Jo Castleton?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for highlighting the case of Lee Castleton, which was well presented in the drama and is one of the most egregious of the cases before us. Like my noble friend, I have read Millie-Jo’s submission. It is harrowing and difficult to read, on any level, not just because of the personal abuse and distress for her, but because of the amount of time that this has taken and how it has completely impacted her life.

Where we are with the compensation scheme is that 78% of claims have now been met. That is 2,249 postmasters out of 2,988. We are now dealing with the most difficult and egregious cases, of which Lee Castleton’s is one. They need time to put their claims together, with the help of their therapists and healthcare workers, to assess the full damage to their family. We will work through that with them, case by case.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland are, so far, not eligible for the legislation that would exonerate them. What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive to bring forward legislation to ensure that sub-postmasters will be eligible for that exoneration legislation at a very early opportunity? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that many sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland have suffered in the most egregious way. They need relief at a very early opportunity.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, Northern Ireland has a separate legal system, as does Scotland. The legislation coming before the House is immediately pertinent to England and Wales, and covers around 770 of the 983 convictions. There are live and active discussions with the legal systems in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are being helped considerably by the Executive sitting again in Northern Ireland. Both those jurisdictions need to be respected and we will work at speed to get the right treatment across the United Kingdom while respecting the different legal jurisdictions.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, with the Budget this coming Wednesday, I repeat the question that I asked the Minister last week and asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Where in the Green Book would I find details of the £1 billion compensation? Is it in the Treasury or another department? I cannot find it anywhere at all. If the Minister does not have the answer at his fingertips, please will he write to me urgently with it?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, which we have discussed in this House. It may not be in the Green Book specifically, but it is clearly in the Treasury’s books. The money is there to be paid in compensation. The Government have given assurances on that; there will be no wriggling back. I am very happy to write with any further details required, but I say from the Dispatch Box that, as far as the Government are concerned, all commitments will be made to the postmistresses and postmasters.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, these are the words of the department in 2022:

“While seeking evidence from relevant witnesses, the inquiry is keen that such participation should not intensify or create psychological distress”.


Does the Minister not agree that the whole sorry fiasco has done nothing but intensify or create psychological distress, due to the complexity of the different compensation schemes; the continued obsession of Post Office Ltd with defending many of its practices; the time taken to get us here, near to quashing convictions; and the fact that no Post Office board member or senior manager has been held to account? I encourage the Minister to do everything necessary to speed up, first, the remaining compensation payments and, secondly, the legislation to quash all convictions. We stand ready to support and work with the Minister on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. As far as parliamentary business is concerned, it is planned to have the legislation go through both Houses and have it all done by the Summer Recess. That is in process, and there are more announcements to follow shortly. In relation to the claims, as I have said before, 78% of claims are now settled, and compensation has been paid to 93% of postmasters, some on an interim basis. As I said in the Chamber last week, we can go only as quickly as we receive the claims. We are at the most difficult end of the claims now. For example, with the GLO 477, we have had 58 claims, of which we have settled 41. We can go only as quickly as the claims come in, and we have guaranteed that we will work to get 90% cleared within 40 working days.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. I am troubled by the Answer my noble friend has given, because how can a family member, as opposed to the sub-postmaster themselves, claim for compensation or psychological help? Many of these families have broken up. Does my noble friend agree that the mere fact that there may be a lot of family members entitled to help or compensation should not of itself be a reason for denying them that help or compensation?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I once again pay tribute to his continual scrutiny of this matter, and his vital role on the advisory committee. Currently, the compensation is directed to each claimant—a postmaster or postmistress—but the whole point of having the advisory committee is to have live discussions on this. I encourage him, in that capacity, to keep those discussions going.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I met several wronged sub-postmasters, most of whom were earning barely the minimum wage. They have been wronged by Ministers, senior civil servants, lawyers, Post Office directors and investigators, and executives at Fujitsu. Can the Minister explain what legal advice and financial help the Government have so far given, or will give, the wronged sub-postmasters to enable them to bring the culprits to justice?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, there is help available as part of the compensation schemes for the claimants, to put their claims together and get access to lawyers and healthcare. As I said, 78% of claims have been settled. We are now dealing with the most difficult claims. In the meantime, there is a statutory inquiry going ahead, which will get to the bottom of this, and we will understand the full extent of how this sorry saga came about.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear the Minister say that there is no help available for mental health issues. These are the facts on the ground; I have spoken to quite a few Asian sub-postmasters, and they all said they have had some form of mental health issue—either them or their families. The reason they do not come out is because mental health has a stigma attached to it; this is why they are not talking about it. I humbly ask the Government to look into this issue, especially among Asian sub-postmasters, who do not want even to talk about it—yet they do have a problem, and quite a few of them admitted it to me.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He has detailed knowledge of his community, who serve us all so well, and who have suffered, in some cases, some terrible racism as well. The point we have to make is a communication issue. There is absolutely no stigma to this whatever; people who have been through this trauma have undoubtedly been harmed, and we must encourage everyone in our communities, wherever they are, to come forward with a claim.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

There is a lot to unpack there. I will take it in three pieces, if your Lordships do not mind. I will start with the Henry Staunton spat; then we will talk a little bit about the compensation; and then we can talk about the convictions, overturning them, and general progress on that matter.

On the dismissal of Henry Staunton and the following row that has ensued, as I said before, it is a shame that we are doing this in public because obviously, there are HR matters here. A senior director has been removed from his post, and due process needs to be delivered and his confidentiality respected.

However, I can shed light on this. This has been helped by further documents today being put in the public domain. In addition to the file note of the Secretary of State’s conversation with Henry Staunton at the weekend, we now have Mr Staunton’s file note to himself after his meeting in January 2023 with Sarah Munby and very helpful clarification from Sarah Munby of her recollection of what happened, with back-up notes. Accordingly, all the minutes are now at the disposal of the public and in the Library.

In summary, the row here is on two allegations that have been made by Mr Staunton—that he was sacked because someone had to “take the rap” and that he was instructed by a senior civil servant, the Permanent Secretary, to slow down the process of compensation and justice for postmasters. It is now absolutely clear from the correspondence and the notes published, and even from reading Mr Staunton’s own note, that the reason for his dismissal was not that he had to take the rap, but quite the opposite. He was in post for just 14 months—from December 2022—and was given three specific priorities by Sarah Munby. The first was to accelerate and expedite the compensation to the postmasters. Therefore, he was not there to take the rap. His dismissal, which was designed to be done in private but has now come out in public, was simply because there were governance issues around his chairmanship.

Interestingly, taking account of the various discussions that we have had in this House on this matter, noble Lords, especially on the other Benches, have been quite clear that they feel that there has obviously been a breakdown in governance and that the Government were not exercising their governance powers appropriately. That is what Sir Wyn Williams will look at in detail. We have a new board. Three new non-execs of a higher calibre were appointed in 2023. There are now two postmaster directors on the board. A senior independent director is required to be appointed and, most importantly, the government shareholder, UKGI, is represented on that board.

In addition, you can imagine the amount of public and departmental scrutiny that is happening. There are monthly meetings with post office executives. A lot of conversations are going on with Post Office management. Within those conversations, quite rightly, without naming names, non-exec directors and UKGI have raised concerns on the governance and chairmanship of the Post Office.

Under previous regimes, it would appear that, when concerns were raised on other matters, they were ignored. In this case, concerns have been raised and not ignored but taken into serious consideration. That demonstrates that we have a different sort of governance now in the Post Office. If I was coming at this from a private sector basis, as a shareholder, I would want to know what is going on inside the company. If non-exec directors came and told me there was a problem on the board, I would take that very seriously. That was then discussed between the Secretary of State and Henry Staunton and specific governance issues and concerns were raised by the board. As I said, the board is run by the chair. If the board is at odds and therefore not functioning properly, we must change the chair. It is as simple as that.

So, on the first point, that he was there to take the rap, the memos and meeting notes clearly show that he was dismissed because we had a governance issue.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

That is fascinating and helpful. Given that there is not a SID and that it was the chairman, what was the conduit of the director’s disquiet from the board to the Secretary of State? How did the Secretary of State learn these things?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I said, we are in a situation now where dialogue quite rightly is happening—and minuted, as always—between officials and representatives of Post Office Ltd. The appointment of the senior independent director was one of the issues that the board were at odds over. The chairman wished to promote an internal candidate and the Department for Business and Trade wanted to bring in an external candidate—which was also the advice of the UK Government, the shareholder executive.

In this situation, when an investigation of why this was happening was brought to bear, that too was blocked by the chair. So there was a situation where the board was not working properly and we had to change the chair. It was as simple as that. The chair had to be changed to make sure the board worked properly. There was no concept of him being there to take the rap for the Horizon scandal.

He has made a second claim, and I advise noble Lords to read the notes carefully to understand this. The conflation going on here concerns the discussion with Sarah Munby in January. The chairman was appointed in December 2022. There was a discussion with the Permanent Secretary in January 2023. That was the first discussion after she wrote the letter saying “Here’s your three priorities”. It was the first meeting between the Permanent Secretary and the newly appointed chair, to say, “Right, you’ve been in post for a month, you’ve looked under the bonnet, what have you found?”

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

This is a brief point regarding the Minister’s description of the situation between the Secretary of State and the chair of the board, and the appointment of the SID. I seek clarification and want to check that I heard the Minister correctly. The Statement refers only to the chair, Staunton, looking to bring in his own person. It does not deal with the appointment. The Minister said the Secretary of State was looking to appoint the SID, a different person, and Henry Staunton did not want that person coming in as a SID, so that was the tension that was there, not the fact that he had carried out some nefarious process in trying to bring someone in.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is a reasonable clarification. The clue is in the name “senior independent director”. The Department for Business and Trade was of the view that we should not be appointing an internal candidate to the role but that an external candidate should come in. That was the reason for the dispute.

On the matter of trying to delay, save money and not budget for compensation, this is on the record to be refuted. The conversation was between the Permanent Secretary and the chair one month into his appointment. A businessman comes in to review the company that he is now chairing. “Please can I have a meeting with you for you to tell me what you have seen? What are the pressure points, what’s good and what’s bad?” The conversation was entirely about the business operating model, not the postmaster compensation. That is a completely separate matter and the finance for it is ring-fenced. It is not within his budgetary concerns. They were talking about how this business model was fundamentally compromised and would not exist in the private sector.

But it is a public corporation and it needs to exist in the public sector. This is why we have this hybrid model. We have 11,500 post offices, of which 5,000 are in rural areas and 3,000 are the last shop in the village. That is not financially viable and would not survive any daylight in the private sector, but we all agree that it is legitimate that this is a vital public service for these rural communities, which is why the Treasury funds that to the tune of £50 million, specifically allocated to run a network which, frankly, is not profitable. That is an immediate discussion between the two and when you add in the pressures of last year, with the minimum wage increasing and energy prices increasing, you can see that there are budgetary pressures inside the operating model.

There is also a discussion about the Horizon computer. The Government have allocated £103 million to building a system to replace Horizon—which is now working fine but is clunky and clearly has not been the right system. So now a new system has been put in place. Any noble Lord in this Chamber who has done an IT project will understand how these budgets go—so there is a second pressure.

There are a number of business pressures being talked about. In the very first meeting between the chairman and his reporting senior civil servant, it is quite appropriate that they should talk about those pressures, and it may well be that the Permanent Secretary was explaining to a businessman, who had not worked with government before, about how government works and how communication works. Undoubtedly, a conversation was had between them, but the record now shows—and the letter written by Sarah Munby makes it very clear—that those discussions did not ever stray into the territory of “By the way, please can you solve your budget pressures by stopping or delaying compensation to postmasters”—that is simply not the case, and we can put it to bed now. It has been conflated and confused, but it is now on the record to show that it is simply not the case.

I turn to the compensation, and the question of whether the Government have been dragging their feet and why. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government have been dragging their feet and I will provide some evidence for that. There are three schemes in place: a scheme for the 900 wrongful convictions; a second scheme for the GLO 555, which, if you take out the convictions, is 477; and there is the Horizon shortfall scheme—the 2,500. That comes to just under 3,000 postmasters, and, today, 78% of all claims are paid and settled. Interestingly, of the 3,000 postmasters, 2,700 have received some sort of payment. Either they are settled, or they are interim, which means more than 90% of the cohort have received either a full and final settlement or an interim settlement on their way to final settlement. That was pushed through largely during 2023, and if we take the £160 million that has been paid out now to the 2,700, £138 million of that was paid out by December last year—before the series and the Bates documentary and under the tenure of Henry Staunton as chairman. Therefore, it is interesting that, under his chairmanship, there is no evidence—the opposite, in fact—that there has been any dragging of feet when it comes to compensation being made to the postmasters, of whom now 78% are fully settled and more than 90% have received compensation.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned that this compensation process is clunky and bureaucratic. My noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, who is in the Chamber, will substantiate that the process has been put together by the subgroup; that is, the advisory group that Mr Bates has been involved with on how to make the process work and be fair. To be clear, the appeal process is more for the benefit of the postmasters and postmistresses to appeal, not for the Government to push back. The Government will not push back on the claims given; we need to give a process that, where an offer is made to a postmaster or postmistress and that individual does not feel it is high enough, they can appeal that process. That process has been designed by the advisory council, so, again, there is no evidence that we are dragging our feet.

In fact, when you look at the cohort of 477, who are part of the brave 555 group who have arguably been through the most trauma, having had to go to court and having been some of the most egregious examples, we want to process those claims as quickly as possible. We can go only as quickly as we receive the claims. What is interesting to me is that, of the 477 who have received the interim payment so far, only 58 full claims have been submitted, of which we have settled 41—we have settled 41 out of 58, we are settling as quickly as we can. Why is it only 58 full claims? It is because those postmasters and postmistresses are now in a position, with legal help, to access all the information to put their claim in, and they are taking their time to do that, and quite rightly so.

I think I can make the point that on convictions and compensation, the money is fully ring-fenced; it is not in the conversation about the operational matter of the Post Office—that is a completely separate issue—and we have committed to go as quickly as we can to make the payments and that is also why we are putting through legislation on the overturning of convictions.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board. Of course, if you are a sub-postmaster, you do not really care who said what to who. There are two questions that a sub-postmaster would be interested in: when will the compensation be paid and when will the convictions be overturned? As for when the compensation will be paid, I would like to pick up a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol; namely, the accounts. In which department’s accounts is the £1 billion that it is expected will be paid out in compensation to the sub-postmasters? I hope it can be found in some department’s accounts. As to the convictions, this is an interesting Statement, but when can we expect a Statement on precisely how those convictions are going to be overturned and when can we expect a Statement on the legislation to come before both Houses?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I will take the second one first: there are live conversations going on right now, at great speed, to finalise the legal process with the Ministry of Justice, which will result in the overturning of all the convictions in England and Wales by an Act of Parliament, excepting that there may be some small number of people who, in fact, have had legal or safe convictions, but they will be overturned—as we discussed before—because the greater good is to wipe the slate clean as quickly as possible. That will be coming to this House in short order, and I imagine there will be unanimous support for that.

As for the timing and the finance, the finance for this will come ultimately from the Treasury. The Treasury has been funding DBT, in order for it to fund the Post Office, and, in the course of last year, under the chairmanship of Henry Staunton, £253 million was paid by the Treasury, via DBT, to Post Office Ltd, of which £150 million was for the compensation schemes—and £160 million has now been paid—and the £103 million was for the replacement of the Horizon system. There are regular funding lines going to the Post Office via DBT.

This money has been ring-fenced and identified by the Government—it sits within the Treasury—but we have also had conversations in this House about the fact that there may be some other sources of compensation to be had from other places, and why it should not necessarily be just the taxpayer who picks up the bill for this when there are perhaps other stakeholders involved in this sorry saga who should pay their part. It may well be that that the taxpayer can be relieved of some of the £1 billion ring-fencing because it may be that we can get other sources, not least Fujitsu, to pay for that.

The commitment given by my department—we are working flat out on this—is to get 90% of the claims processed and settled within 40 working days. There is no going back from that; as we have said before, 78% of postmasters and postmistresses—a figure of 2,270—have been fully paid and settled. We are now at the sharp end of this process for those who were treated the most egregiously. Therefore, those cases are more complex, and perhaps need more time—not demanded by the Government—for the process of how they put their claim together. We have a situation where it is openly known that Mr Bates has submitted his claim and is not happy with the response: that is part of the process that we are in, and it will go on. We will move as quickly as we can to make sure that everyone is restored to the position that they should be in.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a question about the undated letter from Sarah Munby to Mr Staunton that has been released. It asks him to focus on

“effective management of legal costs”.

Can the Minister explain what those legal costs are? What does that mean? Such a letter could not have been written without consultation with lots of colleagues as to what kind of terminology to use. Will the Minister ensure that all the back-up notes to this letter are put in the public domain?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

This is very straight- forward. If I am appointed as the new chairman of a company in this situation and, of my three priorities, the No. 1 is to manage a legal process to get compensation quickly to postmasters, I would expect to be told that formally by the Permanent Secretary and to be held accountable to manage those costs effectively. That does not mean to minimise or delay; it means to manage the process effectively to get compensation to the postmasters. What has been put into the public domain makes it very clear that there has been no dragging of feet and no instruction to the contrary on this matter.

As we have discussed many times in this Chamber, we now have a full statutory inquiry. The judge, Wyn Williams, will pick through this in fine detail. We are all very impatient and frustrated because we want the answer now, but we got into this mess because we jumped the gun before, and we are not going to do so again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, about where the £1 billion sits. If it comes from the Treasury, would it be in the Green Book following the Autumn Statement? It was all agreed by then. If it is not visible in the Green Book, can the Minister please write to the people speaking on this Statement to say where we might find it? It should be visible from the moment it was agreed, which was well before the Autumn Statement last year.

My second question, going back to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, is about the bullying claims. I find it slightly extraordinary that in one part of the Statement the Secretary of State says it is important that she does not go into details, yet suddenly she alleges bullying—which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has pointed out, is not in the Written Statement. It is really important to understand when the allegations of bullying came about and the process that must now be under way to investigate them. You do not sack somebody without an investigation having got under way. If you do, that is the most appalling error of judgment. Can the Minister please confirm when and how Staunton was informed of the bullying complaint and whether he has been contacted by an investigator?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

On the first point, I do not have the exact intricacies of which bank account the money sits in. I am happy to write about that, but it seems to me that if the Treasury and the Government have said we have a potential liability of £1 billion, we are good for the £1 billion. I will find out where it is sitting, if that is the question, but to me that is perhaps a lesser matter.

On the Staunton case, I am not prepared to do HR in the Chamber. That would not be fair or right. We should not talk about detailed conduct allegations in a Chamber such as this. The chairman was dismissed by the shareholder, the Secretary of State. In any company I have ever operated in, the shareholder is entitled to remove a chairman. The chairman’s job is to represent the shareholder, so if the shareholder is not happy with the chairman, it is absolutely valid that the shareholder can dismiss the chair. That is what happened in this case, and there is now a process that is better done in private. Let us not do HR in the Chamber.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that the outcome of this competition of accounts between Henry Staunton and the Secretary of State could have significant consequences for them both, certainly for the Secretary of State if she is proved, at the end of the day, not to have been truthful to Parliament. She has another problem to do with what Canadian High Commissioner Ralph Goodale has said to the Business and Trade Select Committee, so she is in some difficulty.

I am in the space that I think the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is in. I do not think that this unedifying spectacle—this sideshow of mud-slinging—is the Minister’s priority. The priorities need to be full and proper compensation to the people who have lost out; the restoration of their good name in all the ways that will be necessary, which will involve exoneration; and, in the longer term when the inquiry is over, proper accountability for the people responsible for this. In the immediate term there is a simple way of resolving this competition of accounts: to put into the public domain all the information that it is proper to and to let the people out there see it and make up their own minds. They will in any event.

My real concern is that there is almost certainly an ongoing miscarriage of justice occurring in our justice system, as has been exposed, properly, by this Horizon scandal. It is the ludicrous presumption that if information comes from a computer, it is deemed to be reliable evidence. If that is to be challenged, it is up to the person who is claiming that it is not right—not the person who owns the computer—to show that the computer is not producing the right evidence. When on earth will we get this presumption changed around the right way? There must be daily cases in our courts that are not up to the level of the Horizon scandal, in spades and at every single level, creating other miscarriages of justice whose mess we may have to clean up in future at enormous expense to the public.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I absolutely agree that the Staunton issue is a distraction that none of us needs; it is certainly not in the interests of the postmasters and postmistresses, who want to see compensation paid and convictions overturned. As I said, the Ministry of Justice is working expeditiously to sort the overturning of convictions. As I have also said before in this Chamber, there will be serious ramifications regarding a number of matters that will come from the inquiry when it is finally published. I imagine that the matter about which the noble Lord has deep knowledge, the presumption that the computer is always right, will be one such. I imagine that will be taken forward following the inquiry.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is an additional group of sub-postmasters affected by this scandal: those who paid the money back because of the potential or actual reality of dishonour in the communities in which they lived and worked. A significant number did nothing about it and simply paid the money back. Under the coal miners’ compensation scheme in previous years, government ensured that every former coal miner was invited to claim back money they were owed. Will government ensure that every single postmaster and postmistress, or their family if they are no longer with us, has the opportunity to make the claim that they wrongly had to pay back money and felt obliged to do so to avoid what they saw as the shame and dishonour of being seen to be dishonest in their local community?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I can assure the noble Lord that that is exactly the objective. The words that have been used are about restoring all postmasters and postmistresses to the position they were in before this sorry saga happened. The Government will make full compensation when all claims are received. We rely on the postmasters and postmistresses to come forward with their claims and cases. As we stand right now, the cases of 78% of the cohort of victims—more than 2,000—have been settled in full. There is a process to allow further claims to come through and an appeal process designed by the advisory committee to do that. The objective is to leave no stone unturned and to make sure that all compensation is paid as quickly and timeously as possible.

National Minimum Wage

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for increasing the national minimum wage to £15 per hour for workers across all age groups.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. The Government are increasing the national living wage by a record 10% in April this year to £11.44 per hour. This increase will end low pay for those aged 21 and over, and meets the target threshold of two-thirds of median hourly pay. Any further increases in the national living wage will need to be carefully considered, regarding the economic impact, balancing the cost to business and benefit to workers. The Government will continue to base these decisions on increases on robust evidence and recommendations from the Low Pay Commission.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I think it is interesting that none of us knows how you can live on £10 an hour and run a family and pay your rent. The minimum wage is not very near the living wage, so we have to find a way of morphing the minimum wage towards the living wage. I ask this rather strange question: what happens if you take a third of what is on the books at the moment and increase by a third the minimum wage? The reason I ask it is: will the Government change the situation where we keep producing low-paid jobs and low investment so we have an enormous number of people who cannot earn a decent wage? That means that we have to increase the way that we trade. We have to push up prosperity, and that is the job of the Minister’s department.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that reminder. I think all of us in this place and the other place can be very proud of what has happened over the past 25 years on the minimum wage. This wage increase will benefit 3 million workers. Remember, we have 33 million people working in the UK, out of 66 million, so those in the bottom 10% are getting a 10% increase. That has a knock-on effect for further formulae. This is a big impact. If we look at the past eight years, since it came in in 2015, the national living wage has gone up by 60% versus inflation at 30%, so there has been a real increase in wages for those at the lower end of the wage scale.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Bird, would agree that there are too many working people who have to rely on the minimum wage in this country and that those at the bottom of the wage cycle are the ones who suffer most when there is low growth. A key statistic, if the Minister wants to trade statistics, is GDP per capita, which is falling. Our productivity is falling because there is insufficient investment in skills and capital machinery. The reason there is insufficient investment is because businesses do not have stability or confidence going forward. Does the Minister agree that this Government do not have a plan and are not providing the facility that can deliver the growth that will help the people the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is talking about?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. We have record levels of employment in this country, with 33 million out of 66 million people working. Average public sector pay is £19 an hour and in the private sector it is £16. We are now taking the minimum wage up to £11.44. The noble Lord is quite right to indicate that if we want to ask businesses to invest more money, perhaps we should be asking them to invest in more productivity per employee rather than just more wage per employee, and perhaps more inclusion and diversity, along the lines of John Lewis and Timpson.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no justification for discriminating against young people under any circumstances. People can join the Army at 16, they can be on the front line at 18 putting their lives at risk for King and country, but they cannot receive the full national minimum wage until they are 21. This cannot possibly be right. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. There is a wage scale, as he will well know. For those aged 18-20, it is £8.60 an hour and for those under 18 it is £6.40 an hour, an apprentice rate. The point of this is a scale. We all start work on lower wages and increase our wages as our skill levels increase. We must not be in a situation where we, in effect, lock young people out of the market. We must ensure that young people get into the market earning wages and then increase their skills and their wages. The noble Lord will know well that many studies have been done on the wage scar, which blights young people if they do not get into a job early and get training. We want young people in a job early, trained up, so they can increase their wages.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister’s department made any assessment of whether these increases in the minimum wage, which go well above and beyond average wage increases, have impacted the ability of companies to take on interns, which is normally the main route into employment; whether they have had an impact on speeding the adoption of automation and assimilating the upfront costs; whether employers respond by cutting in-work benefits, discounted meals and so on, to compensate; and, not least, what the impact is on the price rise of the finished product, because often people on minimum wages are also consumers of minimum wage products? If, for example, fast food becomes much more expensive, it is not going to be hedge fund managers who pay.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. The cost to business is a consideration that we must consider. The cost of this particular increase will be £3 billion over six years and I emphasise that it will fall largely on the SME community. Some 99% of our companies are SMEs, with 2.5 million VAT-registered companies. Setting aside the 10,000 companies that employ 30% of the workforce, 60% of the workforce are employed in SMEs and they are bearing the brunt of exactly these wage increases. We survey employers and they want to pay higher wages. We want a good, well-paid workforce but we must do so in a way that balances the needs of business and workers.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tireless campaigning to tackle homelessness and poverty. Even at my advanced age, I enjoy celebrating birthdays, but I have never believed that my hourly work increases by 50% simply by ageing a year—yet that is implied by the national minimum wage banding between 17 and 18 year-olds. These days it is a real struggle to survive on the full national minimum wage. Does the Minister agree that lower rates represent unfair age-based discrimination and send the wrong message to young people at the start of their working life?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I think I have already addressed that question. We have to set the national minimum wage as high as possible for young people without damaging their prospects. We have to encourage them into the workplace. We have to avoid the longer-term scarring effects from long spells of unemployment that I have talked about. That is what this metric achieves.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is shocking that social care workers—who perform incredibly skilled and precious work for all of us but the majority of whom are paid less than the real living wage of £12 an hour outside London—are paid so little, and that a quarter of them are on zero-hours contracts? How much do his Government believe a social care worker is worth?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I think everyone on all sides of the House agrees with the noble Baroness that we owe a great deal of gratitude to those who work in the social care sector. It is a fact that a lot of them are on lower wages and we would like them to be paid more, but at the end of the day we now have 10% of the workforce on a national living wage that underpins their prospects, and it is now the responsibility of businesses and employers to increase the training and skills of our workforce so that they can earn more in the market.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on from the Minister’s answer to the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Leong. The Minister spoke about young people being scarred by periods of unemployment, but just imagine trying to live on £6.40 an hour for an under-18, which is what it is going up to in April, or £8.60 an hour for 16 to 20-year-olds. Does the Minister not think that young people are being scarred by the inability to afford healthy food or decent accommodation, or indeed to live any kind of life, while struggling to survive? Their costs are no lower than anyone else’s. Surely they should be paid enough money to live on.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. The ambition that we should all share is for everyone to have rising wages as they improve their skill levels and for our young people to get meaningful jobs out of school that allow them to be trained and earn more as they progress in their career.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Compensation Payments

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of claims that the Post Office was asked to delay compensation payments to sub-postmasters who were victims of the Horizon IT scandal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that Question. I can utterly refute this allegation. This Government have sped up compensation for victims and have consistently encouraged postmasters to come forward with claims. To suggest that any actions or conversations happened to the contrary is incorrect. In fact, upon appointment, Mr Staunton was set concrete objectives in writing to focus on reaching settlements for claimants—clear evidence of the Government’s intent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will shortly give an update to the House of Commons with a detailed rebuttal of these allegations.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the point that he makes about the Statement in the other place. I am sure that this whole House will welcome it being repeated in this House later in the week. Mr Henry Staunton, the former chairman of the Post Office, said that he was told by a “fairly senior person”—his words—to stall on compensation payments to Horizon victims. The Sunday Times yesterday said that the Government utterly refuted these allegations, and the Minister has repeated that today. To make this statement with such confidence, obviously the Government will have had to fully investigate the matter, and I am sure that the Minister would want to confirm this. Can the Minister tell us who carried out this investigation and whether Mr Staunton was approached and asked for the name of the person he said had told him to stall the compensation payments? Can the Minister confirm that the Government will provide a full copy of the investigation report on the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The sadness about this is that the Secretary of State said that she did not want to conduct HR in public, and this is now the situation that we have got ourselves into. We are very clear that no civil servant made that statement; perhaps it is up to Mr Staunton to provide a name, and we can then investigate whether that was the case. In the meantime, it does not make sense, given that the Post Office has been fully funded for compensation already—before the programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, two-thirds of postmasters had had their claims met in full. Indeed, of the £160 million paid out so far to sub-postmasters, £138 million was paid out by December, before the television series. Therefore, it was fully funded, and there is no basis for the allegation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, clearly the public statements of the Secretary of State and the former chair, Staunton, are mutually exclusive, and we look forward to hearing the Secretary of State’s version, which I hope will be repeated in your Lordships’ House. It would be easier to understand in full if it was supported by transcripts of all the relevant meetings. In her social media rebuttal, the Secretary of State said that she

“dismissed Staunton due to very serious allegations about his conduct while Chair of the Post Office”.

Can the Minister confirm that that is true and explain to your Lordships’ House why those allegations were not in fact investigated, rather than simply dealt with through a summary dismissal? If the Minister is unable to do so now, can he come back when the Statement is repeated and tell your Lordships’ House the answer to those questions?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I have said, a detailed Statement on this will be given in the other place, and there will also be transcripts and meeting notes put in the House of Commons Library for full interrogation. It is clear that there were very serious concerns about governance. The noble Lord himself mentioned a toxic culture in the earlier Question on this issue, and the Government’s requirement to clean it up and change it. The most important figure on any board of any company is the chair, and, if the culture is wrong, perhaps the best place to start would be to remove the chair, which is what has happened. A full Statement will be given as to the circumstances of that, but it was not done on a whim and it was not a summary dismissal.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, ordinary sub-postmasters throughout the UK have had their integrity and reputation impacted upon. I was talking to one of those people this afternoon, from Northern Ireland. They are part of the 33% who have not yet received payment and their simple question is: when will those outstanding payments be made to sub-postmasters?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The Government can go only as fast as the claims come in. Take as an example the GLO 555: 477 of them do not have any convictions. Of those 477, 58 have submitted a claim, of which an offer has been made to 48 and 41 have accepted. We cannot go any faster; we can go only at the speed at which claims are made.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the allegations made by Henry Staunton over the weekend are incredibly serious. Thousands of people, as we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, have been robbed of their lives, liberty and livelihood. For them to experience any modicum of justice relies on the truth coming out. I have one specific question, because I know we will come back to this, probably on Wednesday, to discuss the Statement being made in the other place. Will the Government publish all correspondence and minutes of meetings between the relevant departments, UKGI and the Post Office, and put them in the parliamentary Library?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Once again, we are in a situation where we are dealing with private individuals and HR. We should not be doing that in this Chamber, or indeed in television studios; individuals’ livelihoods are at stake here. We did not want to be in this position, but we have to refute the allegations made against us. A judgment will be made by the Secretary of State as to all supporting documentation, and read-outs of minutes will be put in the House of Commons Library. At the end of the day, it comes back to the fact that we need a full inquiry to find out what has actually happened here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I have seen reports that there are still problems with the Horizon system and that some postmasters are still experiencing the problem of underpayments that created this disastrous position. My question is about ensuring that compensation goes to people as quickly as possible. Can my noble friend assure me that that will be the case and that we will look into the suggestion that this is still an ongoing problem, and, if so, ensure that remedial action is taken?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The response from management on this—and this has now been audited—is that issues with the software system are minimal, and £150 million of government money has now gone in to completely replace the system. A lot of investment is going in to ensure that this does not happen again. On compensation for victims, of the 2,700 claims in the HSS, 2,400 have already had their payments cleared—that is 85% of that category. The more sluggish category is the GLO, because those people have more complicated claims. As I said before, we have received only 58 claims from that cohort. As soon as we get them, we will process them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on 10 January, the Prime Minister said that postmasters will be cleared and compensated swiftly. On the same day, Kevin Hollinrake MP said at the Dispatch Box that all compensation should be paid by August. However, on 28 January, Kemi Badenoch said on the BBC that the deadline was not a priority and that getting governance sorted out at the Post Office was more important. Given that in the last few days a number of postmasters have said that they have received derisory offers—in the case of Alan Bates, one-sixth—is this limping things along?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The reality is that the Government are not dragging their feet—quite the opposite. We will process the cases as quickly as they are put in. When cases are put in, and if the offer made is rejected, there is a full appeals process for postmasters, which goes all the way up to a High Court judge. At the moment, Mr Bates has not appealed that decision. All these individuals have to have time to assess the offer that was given. We need these offers to be fair and reasonable. There is a reason for all the offers to be made. We are not here to comment on individual cases, but the money is there for compensation, and all these postmasters and postmistresses will be compensated for the damage that has been done to them.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to previous questions about racism or misogyny, for example, the Minister clearly and repeatedly said that that is a matter for the Wyn Williams inquiry. My question is about process. How do the Government decide that matters should be dealt with by the public inquiry, and how do they decide that it would be useful, expedient and desirable for them to investigate and respond themselves?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The Government are a shareholder, and there is only one shareholder in this company, if you can call it a company—I have never come across a company that has only one. Therefore, the Secretary of State is exercising her shareholder right to reorganise the board of this company to make it fit for purpose to make sure that this does not happen again. In the meantime, the Government, through the Treasury, provided the thick end of £1 billion to pay compensation. The Government also committed to taking full recourse against Fujitsu in due course. In the meantime, a statutory inquiry, with statements being taken under oath, is ongoing. When the truth has emerged, there will be a price to pay.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, in answer to an earlier question, the Minister said that £150 million of public money has been expended correcting the system. Why is it not £150 million of Fujitsu’s money? Will whatever expenditure the Government have made in putting things to rights be extracted in due course from Fujitsu?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is absolutely the case, and my colleague in the other place, Minister Hollinrake, has made it very clear that we will pursue Fujitsu for its share of the compensation. It is not right that the sole payer of the compensation should be the taxpayer.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the government advice to the postmasters who, due to their experience, have developed mental health problems, and received all kinds of electric shocks and so on, and are unable to work?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The government advice is that each individual claimant must submit his or her claim, and money is available to them to take legal and medical advice. That is part of the reason why we think that, of the 477 cases, we have 58 claims—because they are more complicated—quite rightly being put together by each claimant and their advisers. When these claims are submitted, we have guaranteed that we will action 90% of them within 40 days of receipt.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord’s question was about not compensation but the issue of funding the correction of the software to the tune of £150 million. The entirely appropriate question is: why is Fujitsu not paying for the reworking of that software, rather than the Government and the taxpayer?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Perhaps I should have been clearer: the Government are funding this company, Post Office Ltd, to effectively commission a new system to replace Horizon. It might be reasonable to assume that it will not be Fujitsu that does the second system.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope whoever takes on this responsibility will bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that there may well be continuing problems deep inside the Post Office systems. I speak as an accountant, and I declare my interest. Basic double-entry accounting systems should never have allowed this system to have occurred. What guarantees can the noble Lord give us that a proper accounting-based system will be put in place of the current Horizon?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The issue here is that the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who run these shops know their accounts back to front—that is the whole point. They know to a penny what they are doing from one week to the next, which is why perhaps the greatest sadness in this saga was those honourable people being told that they were alone, when in fact there were thousands of them. We are clear now that, in day-to-day operational matters, we do not have these issues. We are clear that we need to put a new system in place, which is what the Government are committed to doing.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to an earlier question, the Minister said that the chairman had to go because he was effectively responsible for the toxic situation within the company, and it was the chairman’s job at the top to be responsible for this. I am sure he would agree that that is the case, but what about all the other people within the Post Office? Is the Minister saying that none of them had any responsibility for the toxicity within the whole company?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

A company’s culture is set by the board and the management. There has not been a prosecution since 2015, and no one on the board of the Post Office today was involved in the prosecutions. The current board is completely different, and we are now dealing with getting the culture right for this company going forward. We always start with the chair, because that is the top position in the company.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why in 2023, of all things, the Horizon contract was extended?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I am rather relieved to say that I have no idea, so I shall write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government now put a block on any new government contracts with Fujitsu?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I am not aware that that has happened formally, but the law of common sense says that it must be the case.

Post Office Horizon Scandal: Racism

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sahota]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reports from sub-postmasters involved in the Post Office Horizon scandal that racism affected the way they were treated by the Post Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question. Some of the evidence that has been brought to light through Sir Wyn Williams’s inquiry has been appalling and regrettable. The Government are committed to ensuring that lessons are learned and events are never repeated, but it is important that Sir Wyn is given the time and independence he needs to draw conclusions and report to Ministers on his findings.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. My heart goes out to all the sub-postmasters, whatever community they belong to, who were victims of this miscarriage of justice. I thank Balvinder Gill, who is in the Public Gallery and who has been through a horrendous experience, along with his mother. Just like Balvinder’s mother, many victims were hard-working, first-generation immigrants, who had accumulated wealth and had a good status in the community. They generally did not have a full grasp of the English language and were treated like second-class citizens by the Post Office. As the Minister will know, over 40% of sub-postmasters were from minority communities. Why was such a high percentage of Asian females prosecuted by the Post Office when, in reality, the prison population of Asian females is less than 5%?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. We are all deeply distressed by the events that have happened during this 25-year sorry saga. The noble Lord refers to one of the documents that was used by Post Office Ltd, which was released in 2023 under the Freedom of Information Act. That did have language in it using descriptors that were very much out of date and should have been updated; it was offensive language and the Post Office has now, rightly, completely changed its methodology. But, once again, Sir Wyn Williams will go into this in great detail.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is easy to see why the noble Lord was shocked by the racist terms uncovered, which were used by the investigating team in Post Office Ltd. It is even more shocking to note how recently those terms were being used, and still more shocking that many of the people who were using those terms are still employed by Post Office Ltd. We do not need the conclusion of the inquiry to know that Post Office Ltd is rotten to the core. When will the new chairman be appointed and when will the work start on cleaning this rotten business out?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I share the noble Lord’s frustration with this process. There was indeed offensive language used in the official documentation, which had not been updated since the 1980s and for which the Post Office has clearly apologised. As far as the culture in the Post Office is concerned, there is a rebuilding job required. The chairman has been removed and live conversations are going on right now to appoint a new chairman. My department is fully focused on rectifying this sorry situation.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, none of the racist terms in the report, codenamed Project May, could have been used without the approval of directors, all of whom were appointed by the Government. Rather than hiding behind the claim that the Horizon inquiry might look at it, the Minister needs to be accountable to Parliament. An inquiry is not a substitute for parliamentary accountability. So, can he tell us when he first became aware of these racist terms and why he has not already referred the Post Office to the Equality and Human Rights Commission for investigation?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is referring to the historical document that was released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2023. It has clearly been identified to have offensive language in it, which had not been updated since the 1980s. There is an ongoing inquiry into this. We all want to know the answer. The reason we got into this position in the first place is that people were deemed guilty rather than innocent without due process. Let us not do the same thing again.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is it not obvious, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, that there has been a complete failure of corporate governance here, and the only way to deal with that in the real world is to clear out the people responsible and put in some people who are capable of bringing order and good management to the Post Office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. We both come at this from the same point of view: the private sector board. The board currently in place is not the board that prosecuted any of these postmasters. In fact, of the non-executive directors, three have been appointed in the last 12 months. There is no question that there has been a failure of governance. As we discussed last time, the governance of this company goes through the chair to the Secretary of State to Ministers. That is where we need accountability and where the inquiry will focus.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the BBC recently reported a number of concerns and comments made by Post Office staff. One sub-postmaster was told:

“All the Indians are doing it. They have relatives so they take the money and send it to them abroad”.


But neither the terms of reference nor the completed list of issues for the inquiry explicitly mentions racism or discrimination. Is the Minister comfortable that the Wyn Williams investigation will deal with these specific issues of racism and discrimination in his report?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The inquiry was set up by this Government in 2020, initially on a non-statutory basis, immediately following the case with Lord Justice Parker in 2019. That was then upgraded to a statutory inquiry. So Wyn Williams has the full authority of the judicial process to get to the heart of this matter. We are also being advised, as we know, by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and the advisory committee. It is very clear that we will get to the bottom of all these issues.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, about why there were more Asian subpostmasters treated harshly and sent to prison is important. Nick Wallis, who has written the book on this scandal, said:

“As I spoke to them I did start to wonder why Asian sub-postmasters seemed to be getting far more punitive sentences than their white counterparts”.


It is good that the Minister said that the Government want to learn from the mistakes. Is anyone looking at the difference in sentencing terms between white and Asian sub-postmasters?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Absolutely—this is fundamental to looking at the overturning of the convictions. There were 983 wrongful convictions and the Ministry of Justice is now working through that process and it absolutely needs to understand exactly how these convictions came about and to whom.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the chairman of the Post Office, who has now resigned, was recently quoted in the press as being advised several times on the quiet by officials in Government to go slow with giving money back after prosecutions in order to save government expenditure. Was that the reason he was sacked or was it because the Government wanted to have a new broom there? It does not reflect very well on what the civil servants were reported to be telling him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I can inform the House that the Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade will be giving a detailed Statement in the other place on this in about half an hour’s time, where she will categorically refute the allegations made by Henry Staunton—with evidence that we will put in the House of Commons Library to demonstrate that that was absolutely not the case. It does not match the facts. The fact of the matter is that we have compensated 64% of all the postmasters already and in the HSS scheme 100% already had offers in Henry Staunton’s time—so the facts do not match the article.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, has made me question whether or not misogyny and sexism played a role in the sentencing of the Asian sub-postmasters. Is that being looked into as well?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. As I said, these are all issues that will be looked at. Sir Wyn Williams has complete authority to look into all these matters and he will be guided by the public interest—where this is clearly in the public interest—and also by the advisory committee, with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and Mr Bates et cetera.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. I ask the Minister: does this not show one of the concerns that we should have about arm’s-length bodies, where they are supposed to be accountable but there are many questions over their accountability? They can act in this way but actually not be held responsible. I wonder whether that has wider lessons for who regulates the arm’s-length bodies and how they are accountable, not only to Parliament but to the British people.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I have said at the Dispatch Box before that there will quite a lot of examination required following the Wyn Williams report. There are number of arm’s-length bodies that are set up to look like plcs but do not behave like plcs, largely because there has not been the challenge and the scrutiny typical of non-execs and from Ministers in terms of oversight. That is, I imagine, something which will be very much focused on following the Wyn Williams report.

[Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned Wendy Williams as looking into the sub-postmasters. Is it the same Wendy Williams who looked into the Windrush scandal? The mere fact is that the Government took no notice of that and have not implemented anything there, so how is that going to work with this new thing around the Post Office scandal?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My understanding that the judge in this inquiry is Sir Wyn Williams. I will have to write and find out whether there is a connection to Windrush. I am afraid I am not aware of that.

Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 December 2023 be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.

Motion agreed.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this has been very interesting debate. There is a common theme—that these clauses are a very blunt instrument. At one end of the spectrum, we have the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which attempt to get to grips with what this is all about and whether these clauses are fit for purpose; and at the other end we have had clear demonstrations that they are not. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, in particular, for his comprehensive and persuasive introduction. I started off fairly convinced of the case—I did not sign all his amendments, but I signed two clause stand part notices—but, like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am now pretty convinced that the clauses are not quite fit for purpose. For the digital economy, we need to be much more wary about how the prescribed cooling- off period works.

I started off thinking that this is an issue that only the subscription and video-on-demand side should be concerned about, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Black, I realised that there is a much wider set of interests. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Vaizey and Lord Bassam, described a much wider landscape that should be concerned.

I started by considering the disruption to subscription video-on-demand services—the so-called streamers. That is why I signed the notice from the noble Lord, Lord Black, opposing Clause 262 standing part. All the representations I received pointed out that this is really business-critical for UK operators such as Netflix and Disney+. I think the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, used the expression binge-watch; if you can do that and get a refund, why bother keeping your subscription? We need to make sure that those services are safeguarded.

A number of noble Lords pointed out that Ministers in both the Commons and this place have expressed concern, saying that they understand the issue and are going to consult; but in the meantime, there is a huge amount of uncertainty. We potentially have it in black-letter law that the cooling-off periods are as set out in the Bill. We do not know what kind of consultation will take place, what kind of flexibility might be operated, and so on. In the meantime, we have a perfectly workable set of consumer contract regulations, which the parties would be happy to apply. That was very much the case the noble Lord, Lord Black, rightly made.

Important principles are set out in the CCRs, such as that consumers can request that the supply of digital content begins before the end of the 14-day cancellation period. So it is perfectly possible to have a provision that safeguards both the service provider and the consumer in these circumstances, but that principle is not imported into the Bill. I do not know why. On Monday, I asked the Minister what consultation had taken place. I have used the expression “blunt instrument”, but these are really important new provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was absolutely right: they are based on the best of intentions, but they are so blunt that they will be a real problem for some of our digital services.

I hope the Minister will not regard our proposals as “not invented here”, and that the Government will not motor on with these provisions without taking a long, hard look at them. This is one of those circumstances where we would all be a lot happier if we reverted to a regulation-making power, got rid of some of these clauses and had a proper super-affirmative provision in the Bill, for example, enabling a discussion about all these aspects of subscription contracts. We heard about the absolute unhappiness with the impact on charities and gift aid when discussing the previous group; that demonstrates the total bluntness of these provisions. I do not think anybody will be very happy with them —the charities, the streaming businesses, the subscription media services or the dating services. There is a huge amount of unhappiness, which I hope the Minister will respond to.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments and their interesting and informed contributions to the debate on this first group of amendments, on subscription contracts.

I will first address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which relate to the cooling-off period. Amendments 168 and 191 would create an additional requirement for businesses to inform consumers of the charges they may incur if they use a subscription but later cancel their contract during a cooling-off period. I agree that it is important for consumers to know what charges they could incur when they exercise a right to cancel during a cooling-off period. However, I assure my noble friend that the Bill already makes sufficient provision for this. The full pre-contract information listed in Schedule 21 provides information on the consequences of a consumer exercising their right to cancel during a cooling-off period. This includes information on any refund the consumer may be entitled to and any reason why that refund might be diminished. That information must be given or made available to consumers as close in time as is practicable to a consumer entering into the contract. Therefore, although I appreciate the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments, I hope he is reassured that sufficient provision is already made in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it might give the Box a chance to answer the question before the end of his response. Do the current provisions in the Bill contain the principle that I mentioned, which was set out in Regulation 37 of the consumer contracts regulations, where consumers can request that the supply of digital content begins before the end of the 14-day cancellation period, acknowledging that they would then cease to have the right to cancel from that point of supply? If not, why not, as that would be the ultimate protector of these digital services?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I will come to that once I have some input from behind me. This is obviously a key part of the group.

Amendments 169 and 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, address the provision of information in relation to the consumption of digital content during the renewal cooling-off period. I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient protection for digital streaming platforms if a consumer has accessed digital content and then cancels their contract during the renewal cooling-off period. The Government will consult on the relevant return and refund rules that apply in this situation and other similar circumstances. This will ensure that rules are fair and practical for businesses and consumers. It will also enable consideration of any specific issues for particular industries or circumstances if needed—for example, digital content, perishable goods or bespoke products.

As part of that consultation, we will include a policy proposal of introducing an explicit waiver from refund rules for digital content, recognising the circumstances that the noble Baroness set out. We aim to consult before the end of the year. This is directly to avoid the scenario that these digital steaming firms fear. It is also important that those rules can be reviewed—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise. If the Minister is undertaking this consultation and looking at a provision of that description, can he also describe which power, in the part of the Bill we are dealing with, will give the Secretary of State the ability to do that, as well as the process by which it would be introduced and the timing?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it could answer the Regulation 37 question.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The point is that we have to consult on this. The matter has been raised by all sides of the Committee and there are specific reasons for it. The consultation is as it says. Rather than trying to go through this line-by-line at the Dispatch Box, I will try to set it out in writing for everyone, so that we can see exactly what we mean by it. If I have any input in the meantime from behind me, I will share it with noble Lords.

I turn now to the clause stand part notices tabled by my noble friend Lord Black—that Clauses 262, 263 and 264 should not stand part of the Bill—and his consequential Amendment 194. The net effect of these changes would be to reverse the cooling-off period in the Bill to the status quo established by the 2013 consumer contracts regulations. In particular, the cooling-off period for consumers after a free trial or year-long subscription automatically renews, introduced by this Bill, would be removed. The Government’s objective is to protect consumers from the specific harms associated with subscription contracts, while also considering the needs of businesses. We believe that the Bill correctly finds that balance. The Government expect that the protections provided through the Bill will have £400 million- worth of consumer benefit per year.

This measure protects consumers who have signed up to a trial period that then rolls into a higher-cost term. It also applies when contracts automatically renew on to a period of 12 months or longer, which usually, by definition, incurs a substantial financial outlay. Indeed, our consultation showed that many people forget to end their subscriptions before they automatically renew, especially after a trial, so we view this as an important provision that must remain in the Bill.

We understand that some businesses, particularly digital streaming services, are concerned about how the cooling-off periods will work in practice. As I mentioned, noble Lords should be assured that we will publicly consult on the cancellation return and refund rules to make sure that we get this right and—to be clear—to avoid refunds being payable to consumers exploiting the cooling-off period. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make the necessary regulations by affirmative procedure. That will be done before the subscription rules come into operation, following the consultation. I hope that this reassures the noble Lords on these points.

I turn now to the final amendments in this group, Amendments 221 and 224, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Black. The amendments would mean that the subscription contract provisions in the Bill come into force two years after the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent. The Government fully understand that businesses need clarity about when the new rules will come into effect and that they need sufficient time to make appropriate preparations. I am pleased to assure noble Lords that the subscription regulations will commence no earlier than October 2025. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of implementing the new rules and to ensure that businesses have enough time to adapt their operations accordingly.

The detail on return and refund rules will be set out in secondary legislation and the Government have committed to consult publicly on those rules. Clause 265 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make further provision in connection with the consumer’s cooling-off right. Those regulations are subject to affirmative procedure, which I hope will assure my noble friend. I am grateful for my noble friend’s amendments and I hope that he feels reassured by my remarks.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Did the noble Lord get a response from the Box?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The Box feels that the point has been covered—but I will write to noble Lords and cover it with them.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his positive reply to my first amendment, where the use of a subscription during the cooling-off period is covered by the powers in the schedule. I was not clear about that on reading it, so it is good to know. As I understand it, nothing in the Bill would prevent a trader from saying to a person, “No, you cancelled a subscription before. I am not going to let you take out a new one.” There is no right of a person continually to enter into subscriptions with the intent to cancel. They can do it once and then they have been rumbled. That is my understanding. If I am wrong, I hope that my noble friend will correct me.

I should also be grateful if he gave me some guidance in relation to Amendment 192 on the meaning of “give” in Clause 264(1), which I do not see defined in any way. When the consumer has to be given a notice, does that imply that the consumer receives it? Email addresses go in and out of use. People change them. There can be blockages of various kinds on them, because some were paid for, or some may be limited by size. One could get into a situation where the trader may think that the person has done something and has sent out the notice but it has never got through, or it can get into someone’s spam trap or, as in this place, it can be blocked by someone else’s spam arrangements of which one would not have cognisance.

My interest in Amendment 192 is whether it would be fairer to do this by making sure that the notice had been received by having some acknowledgement from the subscriber. I cannot see, as an operator of a subscription service, that this is difficult to deal with—one just does not renew until one gets the confirmation, which is a click on the screen. That is not difficult to implement. If we just have “give” as a loose term in the clause, it will allow people to continue saying, “We told you but not in a way in which you are ever likely to notice”—as in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. We should try to avoid that in the Bill, so I should like to see if it is possible to get something firmer by way of making sure that the consumer knows that they are renewing the contract. That said, I look forward to subsequent conversations with my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In speaking to his Amendment 190, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, highlighted an important gap in consumer protection, giving the good example of Flickr. We need to find some way of accommodating that as we go forward. I do not put my photos on Flickr, strangely enough, so I have not come across that, but I can see that it could be a real problem. I suppose that it could also be a real problem with Instagram and a number of other sites. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister thinks about that. Given that the Government have prescribed just about everything else in the Bill, it seems perfectly possible to accommodate that in Schedule 22, or wherever, but no doubt that is for another day.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, we come to the second group of amendments, on subscription contracts and reminder notices. Again, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and interventions. I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in this area of the Bill and I look forward to continuing this discussion with noble Lords between now and Report.

I will first address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, for which I am most grateful. Amendments 170 and 175 to 184 relate to reminder notices. The requirement to send reminder notices is one of the targeted duties that we are placing on traders to ensure that consumers pay only for subscription contracts that they want or need. Of course, we recognise that there is a balance to be struck and we have listened to views from a range of stake- holders to ensure that we get this right. Indeed, the Government made changes to the reminder notice provisions in the other place following further consultation with industry. The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to delivering proportionate regulation, ensuring that consumers are suitably protected from the harms of subscription traps without overburdening businesses.

I wish to reassure my noble friend that for an average monthly subscription contract, a trader will have to send only one reminder notice within a six-month period. We believe that this strikes the right balance between informing consumers about their subscriptions and not overburdening businesses.

Reducing the frequency of reminder notices, as my noble friend’s amendment seeks to do, would increase the risk that consumers end up paying for unwanted subscriptions for longer periods. To be clear, the Bill already allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations to update or modify these provisions in a number of ways, including the frequency, content and timing of reminder notices. This ensures that the Government can adapt the reminder notice requirements in future if evidence about consumer behaviour or operational practice indicates that adjustments are necessary.

Amendment 189 relates to end-of-contract notices, which a trader must send when a consumer has ended or cancelled their contract. In a similar way to my noble friend’s other amendments, Amendment 189 seeks to remove detail from the Bill. However, as with reminder notices, we think that the requirements for end-of-contract notices strike the right balance between informing consumers and not overburdening businesses.

Amendments 185 to 188, which relate to contract cancellations, were also tabled by my noble friend Lord Black. The Government are committed to the principle that consumers should be able to easily exit their subscriptions if they wish and businesses should not place undue barriers to doing so. Consumers should not, for example, be hindered when trying to leave a subscription contract or when stopping its renewal. Those are the principles behind these provisions.

However, I can assure my noble friend that we are continuing to listen to businesses and other stakeholders. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that this legislation gets the balance right between protecting consumers and supporting businesses. We of course appreciate that any communication to end a contract must be clear to a business. That is why, in the event of a dispute, the onus is on a consumer to prove that their method of ending the contract or cancelling it is sufficiently clear to the business for these purposes.

I hope that this lays to rest any concerns that your Lordships might have that a single tweet into the ether or a message via carrier pigeon, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, could be an acceptable means of a consumer leaving a contract. We will also provide clarification through guidance for these kinds of scenarios and engage with stakeholders as we develop it. Furthermore, the Government are clear that nothing in the easy-exiting principle should prevent a trader from requesting voluntary feedback from a consumer who wants to end their subscription or from offering to give the consumer information on other products. However, these must not unduly hinder the consumer from ending their contract.

For the reasons that I have set out, including our commitment to continue to get feedback from all stakeholders on these issues, I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendments and that noble Lords who spoke to the amendments feel suitably reassured.

Amendments 173 and 174 were tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Amendment 173 would impose a requirement on traders to ask their customers to agree, before entering the contract, that their subscription will renew automatically every six months or, if the period between renewal payments is longer than six months, agree each time payment is due. Amendment 174 would apply equivalent requirements but would also accommodate contracts that renew automatically after a free or low-cost trial.

I agree wholeheartedly that consumers must be protected from getting trapped in unwanted subscriptions. However, as I mentioned, the Government’s position is that the Bill currently strikes the right balance of protecting consumers without overburdening businesses and potentially reducing consumer choice. Requiring opt-ins would burden businesses and consumers with emails requiring them to confirm that the subscription can continue. Consumers who forget could inadvertently see their favourite subscriptions lapse.

I turn now to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which would ensure that consumers can have their non-personal data returned to them after they cancel their subscription contract and would stop traders continuing to use this data. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions on this issue. I assure the noble Viscount that, where data can be used to identify a living individual, this information is already protected by the UK GDPR regime; statutory provisions therefore exist for it to be returned to a consumer. This includes data that is directly identifiable to an individual, or indirectly identifiable from that data in combination with other information.

For information that may be considered non-personal or anonymised, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will create a test in legislation to help organisations understand whether information is personal or anonymous. This will help bring clarity to businesses as to how to process the type of information the noble Viscount discussed. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his amendment and hope he feels satisfied with my explanation.

Finally, I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Stowell. I assure her that the Government consulted on the principles of the Bill in 2021 and will publicly consult on the details of the return and refund rules. The purpose of consulting on those rules is to take account of a wide range of products, including perishable and bespoke products and services, that have been used during the cooling-off period; that is why we think it appropriate to set out this detail in secondary legislation following the consultation. I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks and hope she feels satisfied with my explanation.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Can the Minister reassure me that he will write to say how these provisions were consulted on? There is further work to be done, clearly, but it would be good to know what baseline consultation was carried out for all these extremely new, comprehensive, detailed—and sometimes vague—provisions. That is an important part of the knowledge we need to have going forward.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and agree that it would be helpful for all of us if this were written down so we could examine it in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

195: Clause 285, page 190, line 2, leave out “or” and insert “and”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that both limbs of the test of whether a trustee is independent of the trader in relation to a trust need to be satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments, and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their amendments. I will first briefly address the government amendments, and the other amendments in my closing remarks.

Amendment 195 is a minor and technical amendment which aims to clarify independence requirements for trustees overseeing funds in a consumer savings scheme, strengthening safeguards against potential conflicts of interest. Trustees must have no association with the trader or interests in the trader’s assets, ensuring that funds are controlled for the benefit of savers and independently of the trader.

This measure is essential to safeguard consumer funds against insolvency and ensure that they are used for their intended purpose. I hope that noble Lords will accept this amendment. I look forward to addressing in closing any questions or points that they may have about the amendments in this group. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, if not for the fact that it seems we are going backwards and forwards at the same time, which is always a good state be in. As this is the first time I have spoken on day six in Committee, I restate my technology interests, as set out in the register, as adviser to Boston Ltd.

My two amendments in this group are concerned with artificial intelligence. It is a truism, self-evident and barely in need of stating, that artificial intelligence is already impacting many aspects of our lives—as citizens, as consumers, as businesses and as a country—so it would seem timely to review all the relevant legislation to assess its competence to deal with the challenges, opportunities and risks that AI presents for us in all those roles and capacities. I shall say more on that next month.

Today, within the scope of this Bill, Amendment 199 suggests that all legislation concerned with consumer protection be reviewed to assess its competence to deal with the challenges, opportunities and risks inherent in artificial intelligence. It is clear that a number of the concepts and provisions within consumer protection legislation and regulation will be applicable and competent to deal with AI, but there is a huge gulf between what is currently set out in statute and what we require when it comes to making the best of what we could call this future now. I shall give just one example: if we consider how algorithms are set up simultaneously to push voraciously certain content while holding back other content, it is very difficult to see how consumer protection legislation is set up to deal with that challenge. That is but one specific example.

Amendment 200 goes to the question of consumer protection and the need to label all products and services where AI has been used or is built into that product or service so that the customer can know that and determine whether she or he wishes to avail herself or himself of that product or service. In no sense would this amendment require great burdens to be placed on business in bureaucracy, administration or cost. In many ways, this is yet another example of “set AI to solve an AI problem”, with human in the loop and human oversight always present.

I suggest that these two amendments, taken together, would enable the Bill to speak positively and in a timely manner on the opportunities, risks and threats to all of us, and to try to get the optimal deployment of AI in this context when it comes to consumer protection. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Gosh—I cannot help feeling that this is the beginning of a much longer conversation. We may not want to have that conversation now, but this is an important issue; I absolutely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is raising it. We need to find a way to ensure that consumers are properly informed.

On standard-essential patents, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for explaining the background to his amendment. Again, this is an issue with which I was not familiar, but the noble Lord spoke persuasively. I hope that the Minister will agree to follow up on the Intellectual Property Office’s review and provide some reassurance that the issue is in hand.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that we support his Amendment 195. With that, I look forward to hearing his response to the various issues that we raised in this group.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on the amendments in this group. I will address each one in turn.

I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendments 199 and 200, relating to consumers and artificial intelligence. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his remarks on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Can the Minister do any better than “in due course”? Perhaps he can say “shortly”.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

In a matter of time. Why do we not get the Box to define “in due course”?

I therefore assure the noble Lord that the Government’s position on what interventions may be appropriate in respect of standard-essential patents, including specifically on injunctions, will be set out more clearly in the very near future. As the Government are already addressing this issue and are due to make their policy position public soon and separately, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to move his amendment.

For the reasons set out, I hope noble Lords will not move their amendments.

Amendment 195 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

These probing amendments allow us to consider what should be placed in the Bill on Report. Should my noble friend the Minister find himself unable to support these amendments, I very much hope that, on Report, he will come back to a number of the specific recommendations and requests made by the Competition and Markets Authority and the FanFair Alliance, which has been commented on. This is the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill; this is an opportunity for the Minister to ensure that it lives up to its name.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Leong, spoke to so eloquently. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for adding his contribution on a subject he speaks about with great passion. I recognise that many noble Lords have a great interest in ticketing an on a personal level, as an avid sports fan, I share a lot of their frustration.

Buying on the secondary market is a matter of consumer choice. So long as consumer rights are complied with, the Government do not wish to prevent consumers having that choice. In recent years, the Government have further strengthened those rights with respect to secondary ticketing. In 2015, we legislated to ensure that consumers received fuller information on tickets they were buying on the secondary market. In 2016, we commissioned an independent study of consumer protection in the secondary ticketing market under an economist, Professor Waterson. He concluded that, providing they were enforced, the measures in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 should be sufficient to protect consumers. He also noted that there was more the primary market could do to help consumers get tickets there.

Since then, enforcement work undertaken by the CMA and trading standards has resulted in better information being provided by platforms, and the successful prosecution and fining of a number of ticket touts. We have also added further clarifications to the CRA and introduced legislation outlawing the use of bots to buy tickets for profit, on which I know my noble friend Lord Moynihan was very influential. I thank him for his work in this area. The current legislative framework is producing successful enforcement action. It will be strengthened further by the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on ticket limits. In the last year, the Government have consulted further with the industry on applying limits on ticket purchases in the primary market to sales in the secondary market, in line with the commitments in the response to the CMA recommendations. However, we continue to believe that this will be difficult in practice. The Government’s approach—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. How often do the Government turn down very firm recommendations from a regulator that knows the market, such as those made in the secondary ticketing report? It is quite unusual and rather like they are second-guessing the regulator. The Minister said that it is impractical, but is the regulator not in the best position to decide whether that is the case and whether it can be enforced?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. Yes, the Government absolutely expect the CMA to do its job but in the consultation which comes from that, there are other voices to be heard and other stakeholders to be listened to. As I said, in 2016 we had an independent study on the secondary ticketing market and we went to an economist, Professor Waterson, to give us his opinion on these matters. There is a balance to be struck.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am sorry, but Professor Waterson could not have been clearer in his 225 pages—and that was in 2016, so we have had quite a long time to chew over his recommendations.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. The Government’s approach is definitely always to protect consumers, where necessary, and to ensure that business regulation is proportionate. We do not believe that the evidence to date justifies new and onerous secondary ticketing measures. Indeed, it may drive sellers to try to avoid compliance by selling on social media or platforms beyond the reach of UK enforcers, making buying riskier. Banning resales or resale for profit altogether risks reducing consumer protection. For example, Ireland has banned resales, yet Taylor Swift tickets for Dublin are on offer for similar prices to those at Wembley.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I have listened to my noble friend’s argument, but what does he think the reasons would have been for the Government to ban the secondary ticket market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Moynihan, who was intimately involved in them, will know about the specific case arising there. In general, the feeling in the department is that we wish to protect consumers by keeping this activity within a regulated environment. If we ban it outright, we fear that we will drive the secondary market underground. We see evidence of that in everyday activity, including concerts and football matches. We worry about what happens as sales move out of reach of the local regulators and on to the black market.

I appreciate the points made by my noble friend, who speaks passionately about this topic; I know that he cares deeply about it. On his points about football, for example, I point out that ticket resale is banned in the football market in England and Wales for public order reasons. That does not mean that we should extend it to other markets, for the reasons I have set out. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, so much for their very kind words. This is really personal; I took a lot of time to look into this. I thank noble Lords and my friend Sharon Hodgson for their relentless and tireless work here and in the other place. I hope that, with this Bill, we can help to move this issue forward.

The days of ticket touts in dirty macs standing outside venues is gone—well, not quite: they have been replaced by bots. We have to address this. There are still examples of bad behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. If we do not do anything about it, the bad behaviour will continue. With the deepest respect, I humbly disagree with the Minister: this is not consumer choice; this is consumer exploitation against consumer protection. How many more consumers need to be fleeced before we do something about this?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

203: Clause 295, page 199, line 20, leave out “more limited” and insert “different”
Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that when an application to vary an accreditation is made, the Secretary of State can make variations that differ in any way from what is applied for, and not just variations that are less onerous.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the government amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing from those who have other amendments in the group, which I will address in my closing remarks.

Amendments 203, 204 and 205 are minor and technical amendments to Clauses 295 and 296. They clarify that the Secretary of State has flexibility to impose suitable limitations and conditions on an ADR provider’s accreditation, including to reassess existing conditions, when an ADR provider applies to alter its accreditation or breaches its accreditation requirements.

Amendments 210 and 211 make consequential amendments to other legislation, including updating statutory provisions which extend limitation periods to facilitate ADR, to ensure that ADR does not result in consumers being timed out from taking court proceedings. I hope that noble Lords will accept these minor amendments, and I look forward to a debate today on ADR. I beg to move.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my Amendment 209 in this group. It would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the commencement of Chapter 4 of Part 4, to complete a review of the provision of alternative dispute resolution—ADR—in relation to consumer contract disputes in each relevant sector. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the steps the Government intend to take to ensure the provision in each sector of accessible and affordable ADR for the resolution of consumer contract disputes.

Chapter 4 of Part 4 addresses the issue of ADR, subject to the government amendments currently being proposed. Essentially, these provisions are concerned with the terms of accreditation of ADR providers. What is lacking is any provision for making ADR schemes more available and accessible for the resolution of disputes, or even any provision for a review of potential ADR arrangements for inexpensive, speedy and efficient disposal of consumer disputes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has two amendments in this group that would improve the position. One relates to a money award under ADR that is enforceable in the ordinary courts and the other seeks a review of ADR in the aviation sector. I support both those amendments, but my provision is much wider; it calls for a more general review, by the Government, of appropriate arrangements for ADR across the various economic sectors.

Earlier in Committee, I tabled my amendment on the introduction of class actions for consumer disputes, under Chapter 7 of Part 1. The Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said that the Government opposed anything that would provide complexity of litigation at this stage. ADR is at the other end: it provides a very accessible, simple and straightforward means to resolve consumer disputes that should be relatively inexpensive. Resorting to court proceedings is always expensive and time-consuming. They can also be intimidating for consumers. The current delays in the delivery of civil justice are well known.

It is significant that the Government are well aware of the desirability of ADR in other areas that may, in policy terms, be broadly described as those that concern consumers. In the Renters (Reform) Bill, currently in the other place, there are provisions for landlord redress schemes in the private rental sector. It is likely that all private landlords will be required by regulations to join such schemes, which will, in effect, provide an ombudsman service for tenants in the private rental sector. These schemes will provide a swift, inexpensive and accessible means to resolve disputes and pay compensation to tenants who have suffered from landlords’ wrongful action. Joined-up government policy strongly supports the extension of that kind of redress mechanism to consumer disputes generally.

For those reasons, I suggest that the Bill should provide for a government review of ADR for consumer disputes to make it more readily available as a means of accessible, inclusive, swift and appropriate resolution of consumer disputes that is appropriate for the needs of all consumers, regardless of age, income, educational level and vulnerabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

I should have said, in introducing my interest, that the two ombudsmen together resolved disputes amounting to 150,000 cases in 2023.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their amendments and the discussion. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his remarks.

Amendment 208A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to enhance the visibility and specificity of ADR information provided by traders. I understand her concerns, and I am glad to hear that she welcomes the provisions currently in the Bill. The Government believe that, for traders in regulated sectors, specific information requirements should be left to sectoral redress schemes. Many already make such requirements. For traders who voluntarily sign up for ADR, requirements as detailed as those suggested by this amendment would not be in keeping with the spirit of that good practice. For many businesses that voluntarily participate in ADR, doing so is a USP to their consumers.

On the proactive duty suggested by noble Baroness’s amendment, we think it important that traders and consumers have the opportunity to resolve differences through the traders’ complaints process before proceeding to ADR. Once concluded, a trader required to participate in ADR must inform the consumer about that. We consider that Clause 306, as it stands, is proportionate. It is designed to ensure the effective and useful provision of information to consumers. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

Amendment 209, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, requires the review of ADR in each economic sector within 12 months of commencement of the Bill, followed by the publication of a report. The provisions on ADR information in Clauses 301 to 304 facilitate ongoing monitoring of consumer ADR, including its accessibility and affordability. This includes the monitoring of accredited ADR providers, ensuring that consumers consistently receive fair and effective ADR services. It also facilitates the provision of information by exempt ADR providers and regulators, facilitating the oversight of redress schemes in regulated sectors.

In terms of affordability, Clause 292 ensures accredited ADR providers cannot charge consumers unless their fees are approved by the Secretary of State and are published. Nothing in the Bill prevents future mandates requiring businesses to participate in ADR in specific sectors. Legislation already compels businesses in some sectors to participate in redress schemes. Clause 306 requires traders to draw consumers’ attention to any such scheme when responding to consumer complaints.

I also highlight the July 2023 Ministry of Justice announcement, which demonstrates that ADR continues to be a topic of live government work. The MoJ has introduced integrated mediation for claims valued up to £10,000 in county courts and expects this to come into force later this year. Under this scheme, all such defended small claims would be referred to the small claims mediation service before their claim can progress to a court hearing. For the reasons I have just set out, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel comfortable not moving his amendment.

I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 209A. This would provide that a money award resulting from an ADR process should be enforceable as if it were payable under a court order. Many forms of ADR are not binding. Here, the amendment might be counterproductive. Non-binding ADR retains a level of flexibility and informality distinct from the rigidity of court proceedings. This flexibility is crucial, as it encourages participation from businesses that might otherwise be hesitant about entering into ADR. If the consumer is dissatisfied with the outcome of this kind of ADR, they can, of course, take the matter to court. By contrast, where settlements are reached through binding ADR, they are already enforceable, and the amendment is not needed.

More generally, I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill will enhance the quality of consumer ADR in consumer markets, in particular by making the accreditation of ADR providers mandatory, subject to appropriate exemptions, which should contribute significantly to the reliability and effectiveness of ADR outcomes for both sides. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that the Bill provides a balanced approach that maintains the effectiveness and attractiveness of ADR. I therefore hope that she will feel satisfied in not moving her amendment.

Amendment 209B, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to ensure that the Government conduct a review of ADR provisions in the aviation sector. The Department for Transport conducted a consultation in January 2022—the aviation consumer policy reform consultation—which examined existing ADR provisions within the sector. The consultation sought views on whether ADR membership should be mandatory, the effectiveness of ADR compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and the merits of the current system when compared to alternatives such as a single ombudsman.

The DfT’s June 2023 consultation response included commitments to improve complaint resolution for aviation customers. The DfT will work with the industry, the CAA and complaint-handling bodies to consider best practices so that airlines can best manage their own complaints processes, thereby reducing the necessity for ADR intervention for passengers.

The DfT committed to legislate when parliamentary time allows, to mandate ADR for all airlines operating to, from and within the UK, as well as encouraging more voluntary uptake from airlines and airports. The DfT also committed to explore improvements to ADR processes, including better data collection, training and increased transparency in decision-making. There is an ongoing commitment to review the current ADR model to ensure its continued effectiveness within the aviation sector. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel comfortable not moving her amendment.

Amendment 203 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

204: Clause 295, page 199, line 26, leave out from beginning of line to “the” in line 27 and insert “If the Secretary of State decides to vary the accreditation under subsection (8)(b)(i) or (ii),”
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State can alter or impose conditions whenever an accreditation is varied, and not just in cases where limitations are imposed or altered.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

205: Clause 296, page 200, line 37, at end insert “, varying any existing condition or removing any existing condition”
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has power under clause 296(4)(a) to vary or remove existing conditions, in addition to being able to impose new conditions on an accreditation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

206: Clause 302, page 205, line 24, leave out subsection (7)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit subsection (7) of Clause 302, which is superseded by the new Clause in my name on data protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

207: Clause 303, page 206, line 3, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit subsection (4) of Clause 303, which is superseded by the new Clause in my name on data protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

208: Clause 304, page 207, leave out lines 4 and 5
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit the definition of “data protection legislation” in Clause 304, as my amendment to Clause 328 would define that term for the purposes of the whole Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

210: Schedule 25, page 381, line 2, at end insert—
“Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
A1 (1) Section 14 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (computation of prescriptive periods) is amended as follows.(2) In the following places, for “relevant consumer dispute” or “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (1D);(b) subsection (1F);(c) subsection (1G) (in each place where it occurs).(3) In subsection (1D)—(a) after “this Act is” (in the opening words) insert “, in a case where ADR is carried out in respect of the dispute,”;(b) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”, and(ii) for “such a procedure” substitute “it”;(c) in each of paragraphs (b) and (c), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”.(4) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (1E); (b) subsection (1G)(b) and (f);(c) subsection (2) (in the definition of “qualifying request”).(5) In subsections (1F) and (1G), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”.(6) In subsection (2)—(a) omit the following definitions—“ADR entity”;“ADR procedure”;“consumer”;“non-binding ADR procedure”;“relevant consumer dispute”;“sales contract”;“service contract”;“trader”;(b) before the definition of “holiday” insert the following definitions—““ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”Limitation Act 1980
A2 (1) Section 33B of the Limitation Act 1980 (extension of time limits because of alternative dispute resolution) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “cross border or domestic contractual” substitute “consumer contract”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this section—“ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”(4) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (2)(a) and (b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (6);(d) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs);(e) subsection (9).(5) In the following places, for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(b);(b) subsection (6);(c) subsection (9).(6) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(c);(b) subsection (3);(c) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs); (d) subsection (8);(e) subsection (9).Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984
A3 (1) Section 1B of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (extension of limitation periods because of alternative dispute resolution) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “cross border or domestic contractual” substitute “consumer contract”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this section—“ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”(4) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (2)(a) and (b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (6) (in each place where it occurs);(d) subsection (8).(5) In the following places, for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (8).(6) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(c);(b) subsection (3);(c) subsection (6) (in each place where it occurs);(d) subsection (7);(e) subsection (8).Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11))
A4 (1) Article 51B of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (extension of time limits: non-binding ADR procedure) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “: Non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “because of alternative dispute resolution in certain consumer contract disputes”.(3) In paragraphs (1)(a) and (3), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”.(4) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) paragraph (1)(b) (in each place where it occurs);(b) paragraph (2);(c) paragraph (4) (in each place where it occurs).(5) In paragraph (1)(b)(i), for “that such a procedure” substitute “on which it”.(6) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) paragraph (1)(a);(b) paragraph (3);(c) paragraph (4) (in each place where it occurs).(7) For paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) In this Article— “ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act;“qualifying request” is a request by a party that another (A) confirm to all parties that A is continuing with the ADR.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments in connection with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill (alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for tabling Amendment 212, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will be brief.

In 2019, the European Union introduced the second shareholder rights directive, which sets out stipulations regarding the utilisation of specific shareholder privileges linked to voting shares during general meetings of companies that are headquartered in a member state and have their shares traded on a regulated market located or functioning within a member state. It was brought into UK law by secondary legislation, amending the occupational pension schemes regulations of 2005, and it has now been assimilated into UK law. As per the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, they encourage investors to be transparent about how they invest and approach their engagement as shareholders. It was a negative statutory instrument, so no debates were tabled.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, carries greater weight than the shareholder rights directive. It would mandate the FCA to establish regulations necessitating investment managers and life insurers to furnish standardised reports concerning company voting activities upon request. Furthermore, it would instruct the FCA to offer guidance to firms on the specific format for such reporting.

We agree in principle with the amendment that it is right for shareholders to be more transparent. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned being transparent about where investments are made, which we need to know if we are to achieve net zero. This was fully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Fund managers need to be more transparent about informing where their funds are invested.

I ask the Minister: what impact has there been on investor transparency in the four and a half years that the SRD has been in UK law? I look forward to his response.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for Amendment 212, which would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring regulated persons to give consumers certain information regarding voting rights attached to assets in which the consumer has an interest. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Leong, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions.

I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. I suggest that we speak to the Treasury and write to the noble Baroness on a number of her questions, in particular to draw on the comparisons with the US, with which we are so close on so many things, to understand what its experience is and where we are in comparison.

The Government recognise that transparency is crucial to effective stewardship and corporate governance by pension and other investment funds. We also acknowledge the argument that the existing voting disclosure framework is not working as well as it could. That is why, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the FCA set up the independently chaired vote reporting group in November 2022, following recommendations made by the task force on pension scheme voting implementation to develop a standardised and decision-useful framework for voting disclosure.

It is important to take a proportionate approach in implementing changes to vote reporting. Mandatory voting disclosure would be a significant departure from the FCA’s existing rules on voting disclosure. It is important that we have a globally competitive asset management sector. This means designing and implementing regulatory change in a way that considers regulatory costs as well as benefits. That is why the Government support the FCA’s approach to work closely with industry stakeholders and build consensus.

The group has made significant progress and recently consulted on its proposals for a comprehensive and standardised vote reporting framework. The Government believe that it continues to be more appropriate to wait for the group’s final output before requiring the FCA to produce further rules and regulation. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that, when reviewing the group’s final proposal, the Government will carefully consider whether its recommendations go far enough to address the existing issues around transparency for consumers that the noble Baroness so eloquently described, as well as what further action may be appropriate. We therefore hope that she will feel comfortable withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

I thank the Minister for what I think was an unusually conciliatory reply. I am quite cheered by what he said. I understand that we will wait to see what the FCA comes up with. I cannot say that I am overly optimistic about the FCA being effective with anything other than mandatory reporting—that will require the Government to act—but I look forward to seeing that action before too long. I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

213: Schedule 26, page 383, line 30, at end insert—
“5A In Schedule 14 to EA 2002 (specified functions), at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”5B In Schedule 15 to EA 2002 (enactments conferring functions), at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that: (a) information that comes to a public authority in connection with the exercise of its functions under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill is information to which section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 applies (which imposes a general restriction on disclosure of certain kinds of information unless permitted under Part 9 of that Act), and (b) that information to which section 237 applies can be disclosed to a public authority for the purposes of enabling that authority to carry out its functions under Chapter 2 of Part 5.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

214: After Schedule 27, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleMinor and consequential amendmentsPart 1Amendments to Acts of ParliamentCompetition Act 1980 (c. 21)
1 The Competition Act 1980 is amended as follows.2 In section 11B(1) (references under section 11: powers of investigation and penalties), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force and,”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.3 In section 11C(1) (references under section 11: further supplementary provisions), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”; and(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.4 In section 11D(7) (interim orders), in paragraph (d), after “penalties)” insert “as it had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force”.Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)
5 In section 101 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (w) insert—“(x) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
6 In paragraph 17 of Schedule 15D to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosures), after sub-paragraph (m) insert—“(n) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Airports Act 1986 (c. 31)
7 In section 74 of the Airports Act 1986 (restriction on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (y) insert—“(z) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Gas Act 1986 (c. 44)
8 (1) Section 41EB of the Gas Act 1986 (references under section 41E: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert— “(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Act 1989 (c. 15)
9 In section 174 of the Water Act 1989 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (lp);(b) after paragraph (o) insert—“(p) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)
10 (1) Section 56CB of the Electricity Act 1989 (references under section 56C: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
11 The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.12 (1) Section 14B (references under section 14: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(6) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”13 (1) Section 16B (CMA’s power of veto following report: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (9)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”14 (1) Section 17M (references under section 17K: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(6) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”15 (1) Section 17Q (section 17P: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (9)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”16 In Part 2 of Schedule 15 (enactments etc in respect of which disclosure may be made)—(a) at the end of the list insert—“The following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) omit the entry for subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. Railways Act 1993 (c.43)
17 The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.18 (1) Section 13B (references under section 13: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”19 (1) Section 15C (sections 15A and 15B: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2D), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (2G)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (2H)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”20 In section 145 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (qu);(b) after paragraph (v) insert—“(w) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”21 Schedule 4A (review of access charges by the Office of Rail and Road) is amended as follows.22 (1) Paragraph 10A (references under paragraph 9: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”23 (1) Paragraph 15 (paragraphs 13 and 14: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2D), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (2G)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (2H)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(5) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Coal Industry Act 1994 (c. 21)
24 In section 59 of the Coal Industry Act 1994 (information to be kept confidential by the Coal Authority), in subsection (4)—(a) omit paragraph (q);(b) after paragraph (t) insert—“(u) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
25 In section 235 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (ru);(b) after paragraph (v) insert—“(w) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.” Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27)
26 In section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6)—(a) omit paragraph (w);(b) after paragraph (z1) insert—“(z2) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Transport Act 2000 (c. 38)
27 In Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 2000 (air traffic: information), in paragraph 3(3)—(a) after paragraph (rh) insert—“(ri) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) omit paragraph (sa).Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)
28 In section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (5)—(a) omit paragraph (q);(b) after paragraph (s) insert—“(t) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (c. 36)
29 In section 111 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (general restrictions), in subsection (6)—(a) omit paragraph (o);(b) after paragraph (p) insert—“(q) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
30 In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 2006 (specified descriptions of disclosures), in section (A) (United Kingdom), in paragraph 25, after paragraph (l) insert—“(m) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)
31 In section 60(9) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (duties of the CMA), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “apply”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”. Postal Services Act 2011 (c. 5)
32 In section 60(6) of the Postal Services Act 2011 (section 59: supplementary), in paragraph (a), after “CMA),” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”.Civil Aviation Act 2012 (c. 19)
33 In Schedule 6 to the Civil Aviation Act 2012 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph 4—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), in the list of relevant statutory provisions, after the entry for “Water Act 2014” insert—“the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit paragraph (b).Part 2Amendments to other legislationEnergy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/419 (N.I. 6))
34 The Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 is amended as follows.35 In Article 63 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph (6)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (w);(b) after sub-paragraph (x) insert—“(y) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”36 (1) In Schedule 2 (orders altering licensable activities), paragraph 5 (references under paragraph 3: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3172)
37 The Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005 is amended as follows.38 (1) Article 5 (references: powers of investigation) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”39 (1) Article 10 (Article 9: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (3), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (7)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (7) insert—“(8) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/3336 (N.I. 21))
40 The Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is amended as follows.41 (1) Article 23 (references under Article 21: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”42 (1) Article 27 (CMA’s power of veto following report: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (6), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (9)— (a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (10) insert—“(11) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”43 In Article 265 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph (5)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (s);(b) after paragraph (t) insert—“(u) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Postal Services (Appeals to the Competition Commission) (Investigations and Extension of Time Limits) Order 2011 (S.I. 2011/2749)
44 In Article 3 of the Postal Services (Appeals to the Competition Commission) (Investigations and Extension of Time Limits) Order 2011 (application of sections 109 to 117 of the 2002 Act), in the words before paragraph (a), after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force and”.Postal Services Act 2011 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1128)
45 In Article 4 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2012, in the list of prescribed enactments—(a) omit the entry for the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008;(b) after the entry relating to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 insert—“the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.””Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment inserting a new Clause after Clause 330.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on that last point. It is really important that we keep at the question of how we tax digital businesses. One can no longer rely on the Irish national statistics because they are so distorted by profit shifting, a lot of it from this country—profit going abroad and being taxed at a very low rate in Ireland when it should be taxed here.

I know that this is an international matter, but we absolutely must keep the pressure up. We are getting more and more digital, so we need to have an international tax system where profits are taxed where they arise and not where Governments wish to shift them to. I know that this is hard, but I am unimpressed by the progress that the world has made in this direction. I really hope that the Government will get behind the continued efforts on this. We suffer a great deal from it.

At the other end of the scale, the Government could also do a lot better. I am sure that my noble friends will remember that HMRC made a horrendous mess of VAT in the Channel Islands in the early 2000s. Whole businesses grew up in the Channel Islands on the idea that you could ship records out to them, then they would come back VAT-free to the person in the UK who bought them because the consignment was under a certain value.

HMRC eventually dealt with that, but now there is monstrous and recurring fraud through the likes of Amazon and eBay, involving “Chinese” sellers—there is no reason to think that they are of that nationality in particular, but they are certainly Far Eastern—who HMRC does not pursue. HMRC does not effectively collect the tax that is due. It says, “Oh, it’s too hard. Oh, it’s in lots of little bits. Oh, these people move around with great velocity”. Yes, they do, but by not collecting it, HMRC not only does not get the tax but damages the UK businesses that should be able to compete on a level playing field with those overseas sellers. It is delinquent; it is an issue at the root of HMCR that we have never managed to deal with effectively, but we really must.

It is so important that HMRC realises that it should focus not only on operational efficiency in terms of how much it costs to do things and whether it gets the money back that it is investing in this, or a sufficient multiplier of it, but on whether it is doing its bit for the structure of the UK economy and the ability of businesses to start and flourish here. I pay great credit to Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes, which has been active these last 20 years. I hope that it will eventually be successful, but golly, it could do with more help.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this important issue, and for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lucas.

The Government are wholeheartedly committed to protecting the country’s high streets and town centres, and supporting them as they adapt to changing consumer demands. Indeed, the Government revalued business rates in 2023, with the retail sector being the biggest beneficiary. We have also provided long-term investment in our high streets and small businesses, including £2.35 billion-worth of town deals, the £830 million future high streets fund and the £4.8 billion levelling up fund. New legislation in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will play an important role in reviving our high streets by introducing high street rental auctions, which will empower places to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, and seek to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities and make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, especially for SMEs, local businesses and community groups.

The Government also launched the new £2.5 million high street accelerators pilot programme, which will empower and incentivise local people to work in partnership to develop ambitious plans to reinvent the high streets so that they are fit for the future. Accelerators will bring residents, businesses and community organisations together with their local authorities to develop a long-term vision for revitalising high streets. The pilot will run in 10 areas across England until March 2025.

We consulted in 2022 on an online sales tax, and after careful consideration we decided not to introduce it. That decision reflected concerns raised on the risk of creating unfair outcomes and complexities in defining the boundaries between online and in-store retail, including click-and-collect orders. The Government therefore do propose to pursue further changes to business rates or sales tax at this time. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that it is late in the day and that I am raising a fundamental issue at a late point. Perhaps it is straying a little beyond the main intent of the Bill; nevertheless, it is a fundamental issue, and it is important that we have aired it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; as he said, our high streets are far too important to lose. As both he and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the digital world cannot meet all the needs of society, and high streets still have a fundamental role to play. We absolutely need to ensure that the community focus in high streets is revitalised. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we should look at other models of funding and taxation; it was a point well made.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It is easy to say that he is wholeheartedly committed to revitalising the high streets; that is great—we all are—and I have no doubt that initiatives such as levelling up and the pilots will have some impact, but none of those addresses the fundamental fact that it is the economic costs for the shops that is at heart here. You can make a high street look lovely, provide better police and tackle anti-social behaviour, but if the shops cannot afford to trade because they are being undercut by their online competitors, they will not stay around. Unless we take more fundamental actions on that basis and face up to what is happening at the moment, sadly, we will face continuing long-term decline.

I hear what the Minister says. I realise that this is a much bigger debate, but I really feel that the Government do not have a grip on this. They have had 14 years to sort it out but there has been a long decline on their watch. I am sorry to end on such a negative note. As I said, I am sure we will have a further chance to debate this, but I really think that our policy on reforming business rates will make a fundamental difference. Nevertheless, I beg move to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

216: Clause 328, page 232, line 1, at end insert—
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “the data protection legislation” for the purposes of the whole Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

217: After Clause 328, insert the following new Clause—
“Data protection(1) This section applies to a duty or power to process information that is imposed or conferred by or under any provision of this Act.(2) A duty or power to which this section applies does not require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it clear that provisions in the Bill imposing or conferring duties or powers to process information do not require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

218: After Clause 329, insert the following new Clause—
“ConsultationA duty to consult under or by virtue of this Act may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that consultation required under or by virtue of the Bill may begin before the Bill is passed (so long as it is in compliance with the requirements for consultation as enacted).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

219: After Clause 330, insert the following new Clause—
“Minor and consequential amendmentsSchedule (Minor and consequential amendments) contains minor and consequential amendments.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a new Schedule that contains minor and consequential amendments relating to the Bill generally (there are other Schedules of consequential amendments relating to particular Parts of the Bill).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

223: Clause 334, page 235, line 9, after “Part” insert “other than section (Minor and consequential amendments) (and Schedule (Minor and consequential amendments))”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause and Schedule in my name making minor and consequential amendments come into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Post Office Appointments: Ministerial Responsibility

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what responsibility ministers have for the appointment of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Post Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. As set out in the Post Office’s articles of association and shareholder relationship framework document, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade appoints the chair and directors of the Post Office and approves the appointment of the chief executive officer. Strong and effective leadership of the Post Office is a necessity and the Government therefore take their role in making the right appointments very seriously.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I believe that the shortcomings of the Post Office board and senior executives were responsible for this unparalleled injustice. Last week, the Minister said that the Government were looking at tightening the governance of the Post Office. Can I suggest that one way of doing this would be for the Ministers making the appointments to also ensure regular appraisals of those they have appointed? After all, who among us in this Chamber has not gone through an appraisal at some time? If such an appraisal scheme already existed, perhaps sub-postmasters across Britain would not be in despair, feeling that they were—I think of the words of Toby Jones, who played Mr Bates in the TV drama—the “skint little people” who are

“fighting a war against an enemy owned by the British Government”.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The whole House shares the noble Lord’s sentiments that this is a deeply shameful episode, which went on for over 20 years. It is quite incredible to think back on the scale of the failure here, both of governance and of corporate life. Since the Horizon scandal came to light, the Government have taken quite a lot of steps to strengthen the governance of the Post Office. However, there are a number of ongoing reviews, including one by Simmons & Simmons, to look at exactly how the appraisal system works. Once the Wyn Williams review—a statutory inquiry—has concluded, we will be able to take steps around corporate governance going forward.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, in an arm’s-length organisation, to whom in practice is the chief executive accountable? Is it the department’s Permanent Secretary?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question and for all his efforts on behalf of the postmasters. We have to realise that this is a limited company owned entirely by the Government, with one share owned by the Secretary of State. It separated from Royal Mail Group when that went private, but the Post Office is actually classified as a public non-financial corporation. Public corporations include, for example, Ordnance Survey, Royal Mint and British International Investment. They are typically owned by the appropriate Secretary of State in that department, the reason being that they are hybrid: the Post Office has commercial activity, it makes revenue through the post offices, but it also receives public money to support the network. As a result, the governance is such that the chief executive reports to the chair, the chair reports to the Secretary of State, and the chief executive also reports to the Permanent Secretary when it comes to public money.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. We agreed that the Post Office needs leadership, and last week the Minister said:

“We will appoint an interim chair as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 30/1/24; col. 1122.]


Perhaps with another week, the Minister can dwell a little more on the process. When will the details of the process be published? How will the job description of this appointment differ from the job description that was used by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng when he appointed Henry Staunton as recently as September 2022? What will change in the job description of the chairman from the last appointment?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The corporate answer is that the chief executive reports to the chairman; the job of the chairman is to fire the chief executive on behalf of the shareholder; the shareholder is the Government and, since these matters came to light in 2020, we have had the new shareholder relationship document that outlines all the governance on this. Indeed, the Minister for the Post Office has had monthly meetings, starting with Minister Scully through to the current Minister, Minister Hollinrake, with the chief executive. When the new chair is appointed, that chair will step into the position and continue to run the board on behalf of the Government.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a member of one of the departments is a member of the board of the Post Office, at the relevant time—and the board knew quite early on that Horizon was not working properly—why did that representative not tell the Government, or did he do so?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness: this is the whole purpose of the inquiry. I cannot answer the specific questions, not having been there myself. The inquiry will look into this. What is clear is that there has been a failure of governance. On the face of it, Post Office Ltd is set up with the right checks and balances in place. There have been non-executive directors, there is the government representative on the board, there is a chairman: on the face of it, it should be subject to the governance that we see in private companies. For some reason, there has been a lack of inquiry and of challenge and we need to understand why and find out who is accountable for that.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not a systemic failure of the whole state? The answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is that the Permanent Secretary is the accounting officer for the Post Office, and the department puts a director on the board of a public corporation. This is not just about the failings of Post Office managers; it is about the failings of the whole state, which sacrificed pillars of the community to suffer one of the gravest injustices committed in recent times.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that: no one can disagree with his sentiments. As I said, the machinery was put in place, but there was a lack of scrutiny, inquiry and challenge from the non-executive directors, from, perhaps, the chair, and from, perhaps, the Ministers. The Permanent Secretary role is a key one because, using the public accounting model, they meet with the DBT on a quarterly basis to have that line of communication as well. There was no shortage of lines of communication here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has vast experience in private equity and elsewhere in business. Does he not agree that, faced with this kind of disaster, the first thing any private business would do is clear out the entire board, without necessarily attributing any blame, and put in a new team of people who did not have any baggage in order to sort it out. Why do the Government not get on and do that?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Three new non-executive appointments were made in 2023 and there will be a new senior independent director appointed and a new chair. Two postmaster directors have also been appointed to the board. The current chief executive, who came in in 2019 at the point of the judgment, remains in place. We continue to have faith in him to move this thing forward quickly, with the right amount of oversight. We have confidence in the board as it is reconstituted. But, as has been said, the question is: why did the original failure happen? We need to find that out.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the financial cost of the Horizon scandal is going to be in excess of £1 billion, and that does not take into account the personal cost to the postmasters and postmistresses, some of whom are here with us. Fujitsu has offered to pay a voluntary contribution but, more importantly, should the Post Office wish to sue Fujitsu, is it still in time to do that and when did the Post Office agree a standstill?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. On the specifics, I will write to him on the actual timeline, but the reality is that Fujitsu knows it has a major part to play here. It knows that it is under serious investigation. It has pre-empted that by coming out and saying that it feels a moral responsibility. My colleague, the Minister in the other place, has made it very clear that the cost of this debacle cannot land purely on taxpayers and I am sure there will be a very full investigation and compensation required from Fujitsu.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when in an earlier Question Time I asked the Minister whether the Post Office brand was not now too toxic for it to continue as currently constituted, the Minister replied that, in his view, the brand image of the Post Office had improved as a consequence of what had happened. Now, while the reputation of the people who run sub- post offices has no doubt been greatly enhanced, to suggest that of the reputation of the organisation which so cruelly and illegally persecuted them cannot possibly be true. So I repeat what I asked then: is it not now time for a wholly new organisation, with new leadership and a new business model incorporating the appropriate ethical principles?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. To clarify my remarks, last time I said that the reputation of the postmasters had been enhanced and most people in the community think of the Post Office as being the postmasters. In the last 12 months, the churn of postmasters—those leaving and those coming in—has gone up. We have a record number of post offices—11,700—in the country; 5,000 of those are in rural areas and one-quarter are the last shop in the village. They form a vital role in the community and, as I said before, the reputation of the postmasters has only been enhanced by this sorry tale.

Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I was pleased to note the positive debates last year, when the Carer’s Leave Bill received cross-party support in both Houses. The Carer’s Leave Act, under which these regulations are being brought forward, obtained Royal Assent on 24 May 2023. The Carer’s Leave Regulations were laid on 11 December 2023. I should start by thanking Wendy Chamberlain MP and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their work in getting us to this stage. I want again to thank everyone who participated in relation to this significant matter in both Houses last year. I am delighted to be here today for this debate on these draft regulations.

I should also take this opportunity to flag a correction slip in relation to page 2 of the SI. Regulation 5(1), line 1 stated:

“is entitled one week”,

but now reads,

“is entitled to one week”.

The context of these regulations is to recognise the importance of unpaid carers. This Government appreciate the time dedicated by unpaid carers to help those dependants who rely on them for their everyday needs. These regulations will provide valuable additional flexibility to support all unpaid carers who are in employment across the country.

Statistics from the Family Resources Survey 2021-22 show that there are 4.9 million adult informal carers in the UK. Just over half of those are also holding down a job. Around 2.5 million people are trying to balance work with their caring responsibilities, which is a significant proportion of the workforce. We know that an additional leave right is important for them. A survey published by Carers UK in 2022 found that 75% of the unpaid carers who responded worry about continuing to juggle work and care, two-thirds have given up opportunities at work because of caring and a quarter said they needed better support to return to or maintain paid work, while a quarter said they need unpaid carer’s leave to do so.

In addition to the new entitlement to carer’s leave, it is also the case that having flexibility with start and finish times at work, or working from home where this is possible, can make it easier for carers to balance work and their caring needs. The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, which also comes into force in April 2024, will increase the number of requests an employee can make in a 12-month period and reduce the time allowed to administer requests. Separate regulations, also expected to come into force in April 2024, will remove the continuity of service requirement for the right to request flexible working. Therefore, employees will be able to request flexible working arrangements from the first day of their employment. These changes will also support the ability of carers to remain in, and progress in, work.

I turn to the regulations, which will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitment to introduce one week of leave for unpaid carers. I shall set out briefly what they do. The first key element is that the carer’s leave entitlement will be a day one right for employees, so it will be available from the first day of employment. It can be used for providing care or making arrangements for the provision of care for a dependant with a long-term care need. These definitions have purposefully been kept broad to encompass a range of different care needs and circumstances. Flexibility is key: no two care dependants have the same care needs—and the circumstances of the carer’s employment will be different, too.

Employed carers can take the leave flexibly, from half a day at a time up to a block of one week. This ensures that carers can use their carer’s leave in a proportionate way that suits their needs. For example, they could accompany their dependants to an appointment or visit a potential care home and get back to work on the same day. If necessary, they could care for their dependant for a whole week—for example, if they are recovering from a major medical procedure. These are just examples to illustrate how the leave may be used. In claiming the leave, there will be no evidential requirement to demonstrate how the leave will be used or who it is used for. The purpose of this approach is to remove undue stress for the employee, including any concerns that they may have about providing potentially sensitive information about a third party. It will also minimise the administrative burden for employers and reduce bureaucratic obstacles.

The regulations put in place a minimum notice period requirement, which is similar to the existing annual leave entitlement. This will mean that employed carers must give notice of twice the length of time being requested plus one day, subject to a three-day minimum notice period. Furthermore, the notice can be given in multiple forms, whether that is via email, verbally or through an existing application within the workplace. We also recognise that there may be circumstances in which granting the leave may be difficult for the employer, such as during a busy week for an urgent deadline. The regulations will give employers the power to postpone the leave, but they may not deny it completely. It will be down to the employer and employee to come to an alternative arrangement that works best for both parties. Lastly, employees taking carer’s leave will have the same employment protections associated with other forms of family-related leave, including protection from dismissal or detriment as a result of having taken the leave.

In conclusion, these measures will provide invaluable support to unpaid carers balancing work with their caring responsibilities. Employees and employers are set to benefit from this Act. Employees will receive an extra bit of flexibility. By providing that extra flexibility, employers will be able to retain valuable staff members who would otherwise have struggled to remain in work. The Government are very pleased to have supported the Private Member’s Bill and be delivering these regulations.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly, primarily to say how delighted I am that this legislation will come into force on 6 April. As the Minister said, there was strong cross-party support for the Bill when it had its passage through the House. I thank those who were involved in drawing up the regulations, as they have done a good job of it. I have been involved in this area for some time now, and in previous attempts to get legislation of this type on the statute book that were not successful, and that is why I am delighted that this one was successful. However, I have not been involved for anywhere near as long as my noble friend—and I think of her very much as my noble friend—the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who has tirelessly campaigned in this area for many decades.

This is landmark moment and one we should celebrate. For the very first time, those juggling paid work and unpaid care are going to have dedicated rights in the workplace. It will provide them with more flexibility, and it will make a very real difference to the quality of those carers’ lives. It has been estimated that at least 2 million people will be able to take advantage of the provisions in this legislation, which is going to provide real support to help people, particularly women, to stay in work. I emphasise that point, because we know that it is women who are more likely to be juggling work and care and are more likely to be in part-time than full-time work. Also, we know that women in their 50s are more likely to leave the labour market—more likely than men—to provide unpaid care for family members. I am hoping that this is something that will mean that fewer women will have to leave the labour market.

I have one question for the Minister. Thinking back to our previous debates, I think the provisions of this Act will also apply to parents who have children with a long-term disability. That is an important point. What sort of steps are the Government thinking of taking to make sure that those parents are aware that this applies to them and not only to carers of adults with disabilities or older relatives?

This is an incredibly important milestone. I hope that we can build on this important first step, which will benefit the labour market as well as individuals, so that in future we can move to having a paid leave provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out these regulations and the correction. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it now two weeks instead of one week?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

One.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is one week—okay.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, whom I thank for her 30 years of campaigning—I do not think I will last 30 years in this House, but I thank her for her dogged perseverance and congratulate her on getting this on the statute book. We support this instrument to establish a statutory entitlement to carer’s leave from 6 April this year and ensure leave is available for employees caring for a dependant with long-term needs in England, Scotland and Wales.

With the introduction of this additional legislation, we will be providing a little more support, albeit limited and unpaid, to around half of the 4.2 million people across the UK who are trying to square the circle of holding down a job while providing unpaid care for elderly or disabled loved ones. The majority of these carers are women over 50. As my noble friend Lady Blake said at Second Reading, some more enlightened employers already have provisions to support workers who are carers, removing the silent shame that sometimes exists for those who provide care while working.

This instrument ensures that all workers become legally entitled to take unpaid leave for caring responsibilities from day one of their employment for up to one week in any 12-month period. This may be taken in increments of half or full days, so long as eligibility for carer’s leave is met. Employees will not be required to provide evidence in relation to their request, and they will be able to use carer’s leave specifically for foreseen and long-term care needs, rather than solely for emergency caring situations. This should enable better planning for employers and employees alike, with the minimum of bureaucracy. In addition, carer’s leave will be available for a wider range of caring situations, excluding general childcare, which better suits those caring for dependants over 18, who fall outside the scope of parental leave legislation.

I am struck by a sense of déjà vu. Last week, I spoke in this Room in support of another statutory instrument, on which noble Lords were broadly agreed, which supported workers who were pregnant or on maternity or parental leave when their employer was considering redundancies. As in this case, the legislation had come through a Private Member’s Bill from this side of the House. As in this case, we were adding legislation that improved the situation for workers, predominantly women, to protect those affected by particular family responsibilities. Once again, I feel compelled to ask the Minister why the Government seem to place such a low priority on such important legislation, as evidenced by the complete absence of an employment Bill despite more than 20 pledges to introduce one.

The Government seem to recognise the importance to our economy of encouraging the cohort of around 5 million people who could work but are not working back into employment, yet they seem to be relying on Private Members’ Bills to identify the problems and bring forward legislation that recognises the realities of the workforce: that many people have family responsibilities which some employers see as barriers to employment. I am afraid it is simply not good enough for them to point to the fact that we have 33 million people in work when, with a growing and ageing population, we are underutilising the skills and talents of millions. These are people who would be contributing to the economy and to the Exchequer if they were better supported to enter or re-enter the workforce.

To turn back to the instrument before us, is the Minister aware that half of all young carers in the UK are carers for their brothers and sisters? However, the definition of dependant does not include siblings by default, unless they live in the same household or come under some vague definition. Although a broader definition is welcome, the room for interpretation of “reasonably rely on” will inevitably leave gaps or create conflict with employers. What consideration have the Government given to this? Furthermore, has any consideration been given to the unlikely but not impossible case where somebody has more than one dependant? Can the Minister clarify whether the one week of carer’s leave entitlement over 12 months is calculated per employee or per dependant?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, can the Minister assure us that this new employment right, which will improve the situation of hundreds of thousands of workers, will be communicated to those who may benefit from it, as well as employers, so that the onus and responsibility does not fall on those already juggling complex situations to alert their employers to these changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley mentioned? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their observations and questions. The great thing about this topic is that we all have consensus about the way forward and why we are doing this.

A number of points have been raised. To take them in a certain amount of order, to answer the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Pitkeathley, the characteristics of the carers being referred to cover 2 million to 2.5 million people, especially women, and especially older women. When we think about the characteristics of those folks, these are, by definition, some of the most conscientious people we have in our communities and are, on the whole, very good employees. It is interesting how, post Covid, employers have worked out that the most important resource they have is the labour force and that they have to work hard to keep the labour force together. It is interesting that, although this is unpaid leave, a number of employers who advertise themselves as Employers for Carers allow this to take place without it being unpaid. We might see more of that as employers begin to understand that this is a very important part of their workforce.

The noble Baronesses both raised the issue of childcare. This SI does not specifically relate to childcare because many regulations are in place specifically for childcare, but I can confirm that carer’s leave can be used for a child where it falls within the definition—the definition being caring for a child with a disability.

The communication of this is interesting. In preparing for this I came across a number of other child provisions, one of which I did not know about. For example, if you have more than a year’s continuous employment with an employer you are entitled to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave per child up to the child’s 18th birthday, which could be one week a year. I am not aware that many people know about that. That makes the point really well about comms, which will be a key part of this. The Government need to work with a number of agencies to do that.

To be fair, the Government will be promoting this largely through the business channels, the business stake- holder groups for employers, and then through the voluntary organisations such as Care UK. Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about the comms and the awareness campaign, a number of pieces of legislation are coming through on carer’s leave—the one we have today—on flexible working, on redundancy protection, and on parental leave, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Leong. They all need to be promoted as those Private Members’ Bills go through, so that together we are able to present the improvements for employees in the workplace,

I turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank him, and particularly his colleague, Wendy Chamberlain MP, in the other place—a very effective MP. This relates to safe conversations and the comms to employers. I am confident that good employers will want to promote this measure but, again, it is down to us to make sure that the awareness campaign is raised and is effective. The economic case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, can be made. It should not necessarily be the only case but it certainly helps with the arguments.

Finally, turning to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, I guess we understand why there was no employment Bill, putting aside the fact that perhaps Covid got in the way of parliamentary time. Philosophically, also, there is a feeling within the Government that we are in a situation where progressive legislation has been put through by many Governments to get UK labour and employment law into a pretty good place. That is evidenced by the fact that there are a record 33 million people working out of 66 million—a record number for the UK. In particular, the noble Lord highlights that 5 million adults are not in work. They are not classified as unemployed but they are not in work and many of them are long-term sick and have lost the pathway back to work. A lot of effort now needs to go into helping them. There is a lot of talent there, which employers can employ. Therefore, the Government are turning our attention to that. However, as far as the overall programme of employment regulations is concerned, these Private Members’ Bills have come in on specific rifle-shot issues, reflecting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, long-term campaigning from many of the groups involved. They have been very specific in a number of the areas that we mentioned and have, therefore, created improvement to the rights of employees in the UK.

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for participating in the debate. It is a pleasure to be involved in legislation that brings all parties together. I hope that this new leave right will make it easier for carers to balance their work commitments and their caring duties. Finally, I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his previous work in taking the Act forward: without that, we would not be here today. This is an important piece of legislation and I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was initially going to say that this is a disparate group of amendments but, as I have heard the arguments adduced, I have realised that it has more coherence to it.

The Committee should pass a vote of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling her amendment. This is an incredibly sensitive issue and one that in spirit we completely support—why wouldn’t you? If I were in the noble Baroness’s position, having dealt with cases of the sort that she has, I, too, would probably be mounting a campaign on this. We should be grateful to the Mental Health Foundation for the support that it has given. It cannot be right that usually harmless algorithms are used for another purpose like this and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity to the law.

This issue raises highly sensitive issues about online purchases. It is hard to envisage that any commercial undertaking, whether online or trading on our high streets, would deliberately market a product knowing that it was likely to be used for acts of self-harm and far worse. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this. If there is something that can usefully be done in legislation and there is an opportunity to do it here, we should take that opportunity.

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which initially I thought put the cart before the horse, but I do not think so any more. It is a neat amendment that is usefully placed. The noble Lord is looking at how the effectiveness of trading standards is measured and looking at their resource and support.

About 20 or 30 years ago, I was a trading standards national officer. I was not a trading standards officer, but I used to lobby government for resources on behalf of trading standards, which always used to say they did not have enough resource. The answer from the Government at the time was pretty much the same as I am expecting the answer to be this afternoon: that the Government are resourcing trading standards well and that they do a very good job. However, there is a good case for reviewing their effectiveness, particularly in the light of the other amendments in this group.

I will come back to Amendment 111 in a moment, but Amendments 112 to 120 relate very neatly to the scope and jurisdiction of weights and measures—ie, trading standards. They would significantly broaden the responsibilities of trading standards officers, who presumably would take on investigatory and enforcement responsibilities on a shared basis with the CMA. We have sympathy with these amendments because there is a strong case for local enforcement. I understand that people living in a locality might want to go to their local authority trading standards officers for advice, support and encouragement in seeking enforcement against rogue online traders. If we embark on this route there will need to be protocols in place so that duplication does not occur and so that there is good advice and information from officers locally working in tandem with CMA officials, and of course there would be a question of resource and support for local trading standards officers. Ministers and the Government may think that this is a valuable route, but the relationship between central and local enforcement needs to be explored. These amendments valuably focus light on that, because people in any community anywhere in the country will want to know how they can access their rights as consumers dealing as much online as in the high street and offline. We have a lot of sympathy for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.

I will go back to Amendment 111. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, argued, it is really about the detail of the enforcement of penalties and their range and scope. In general terms, we support the notion that penalties should take account of the profitability of the company which is in breach of enforcement orders—breaking the law. Again, it will be interesting to hear the Minister set out the Government’s policy in this field and explain to us how it is going to work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their amendments in this group and for their valuable contributions on these important issues. I will start by discussing Amendment 110. moved by my noble friend Lady Morgan, whose continued leadership on this very serious and hugely important topic is commendable. Amendment 110 would make the marketing of products intended to be used to take one’s own life a specified prohibition, which would therefore be enforceable under Part 3. Like everyone who spoke, I—and the Government—recognise the tragic consequences of suicide and how so many lives and families have been devastated by it. The Government do not underestimate the gravity of this issue, and that is reflected by the measures already in place around suicide prevention and, indeed, the steps we have taken to clamp down on the advertising and supply of pro-suicide materials.

First, we have strong, well-defined laws in relation to complicity in another person’s suicide, such as the Suicide Act 1961. Building on that, where content on the internet reaches the threshold for a criminal offence under the Suicide Act 1961, the Online Safety Act will place new duties on all in-scope user-to-user services proactively to tackle it.

Under the Online Safety Act, search services have targeted duties that focus on minimising the presentation of illegal search results to users, and protecting children from such search content. These duties will play a key role in reducing traffic directed to websites with content that encourages or assists suicide, reducing the likelihood of users encountering this content. The Act also places duties on providers to protect children from harmful content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide but that does not meet the criminal threshold. Separately, the independent Advertising Standards Authority bans adverts that may cause harm or serious or widespread offence, including adverts containing references to suicide.

These approaches are supported by the Government’s suicide prevention strategy for England. As part of that, the Department of Health and Social Care leads a cross-government and cross-sector group established to rapidly identify and proactively tackle emerging methods of suicide. Through this group’s close working, there are currently over 30 live actions and interventions to reduce public access to, and limit awareness of, emerging methods, with further commitments made in the strategy. These include seeking to tackle at source the suppliers of harmful substances for the purposes of suicide, and the development of a new national process that both captures intelligence and subsequently issues alerts to relevant parts of the health, care, education and justice systems on any emerging methods or risks to be aware of.

Amendment 110 is set against this background. Its laudable intent does not fit with the purpose of Clause 149 and, by extension, Part 3. This amendment would use Part 3, which is merely an enforcement vehicle for existing duties, prohibitions or restrictions, to define and impose on traders a substantive legal prohibition. Once again, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend’s amendment. I applaud her passionate sponsorship of this vital issue and would be delighted to meet, as requested. However, at this moment, I hope she feels reassured enough by existing measures to withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for Amendment 110A. The Government fully agree with him that, as with any statute, Part 3 needs to be kept under review to ensure that it achieves its intended real-world impacts. However, it is important to note that the court-based consumer enforcement regime under Chapter 3 of Part 3 is not new. In general, it updates and simplifies the current court-based enforcement regime in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. There are therefore existing mechanisms for reviewing the effectiveness of consumer enforcement, which we believe to be sufficient.

First, public designated enforcers already review and report on the enforcement interventions they undertake. For example, since 2019, the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has produced annual impacts and outcomes reports that show the impact of local authority trading standards services in England and Wales. Both the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland conduct workforce surveys and publish reports that cover issues such as staffing and enforcement actions. Regulators such as the CMA, the Financial Conduct Authority and Ofcom provide transparent statements about their enforcement work and publish annual reports that evaluate their past year’s performance. These regulators are accountable to Parliament and subject to scrutiny by parliamentary Select Committees.

This ongoing reporting is complemented by dialogue with government about enforcement priorities and capability. For example, the CMA, which has a central co-ordination role in the network of public designated enforcers, already has a statutory role to provide advice to government on matters relating to its functions, including consumer enforcement. The Government may therefore request the CMA to provide information or advice on any gaps in enforcers’ powers or capabilities. The Government have committed to respond publicly to such advice within 90 days, clearly indicating the steps we will take in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Before the Minister moves on, would he be so kind as to point out which bit of the Long Title prevents the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, from being incorporated into the Bill? This is an important issue and he gave us no real comfort about what other powers might be available to remedy the kind of situation that the noble Baroness talked about. Secondly—I sound like a taxi driver—Amendment 110A talks about resources for trading standards but, as the Minister well knows, local authorities are in dire straits. It is not just a question of saying that their funding is not ring-fenced; it is also about the Government making sure that trading standards are adequately resourced for consumer protection. How are they going to ensure that?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. As I said on my noble friend Lady Morgan’s Amendment 110, we are dealing with a serious issue. I took great pains to run through the various layers of protection currently on the statute book and outlined why the Government believe that this is covered elsewhere and is not within the scope of the Bill. I have also said that I will meet my noble friend and look at this in more detail to see whether we need to look further at the Long Title, to which the noble Lord referred.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord saying that it is not outside the scope of the Bill?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

We are saying that there is extensive protection built up around this sensitive issue and that there should not be further legislation made within the scope of the Bill, but that, if we need to look at it further, we can do so before Report.

Every local authority always wants more money. It is a feature of UK public life and it is up to local authorities to decide how to spend their money appropriately. As we all know, some are better run than others. Funding is not ring-fenced and it is up to local authorities to make sure that standards are maintained in their area.

Amendments 111 and 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pertain to profits from infringements and the calculation of penalties. They would ensure that profits made from engaging in an infringing commercial practice can be expressly reflected in the calculation of a monetary penalty imposed through an enforcement order made by the court or a final infringement notice given by the CMA. I thank the noble Lord for his amendments and I absolutely agree with the intent behind them. In fact, work is under way to produce a comprehensive set of regulations, which could be made under Clause 203, to set out the amounts that are to be treated as comprising a person’s turnover when calculating the maximum penalty that can be levied.

Our intention is that any profits accruing from the relevant infringement will be captured by this methodology, but we consider that this maximum penalty calculation will be a technical exercise that needs to be supported by robust and detailed methodology, which is therefore better suited to secondary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently reassured that this important issue will be addressed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but this is quite an important factor. Is he saying that secondary legislation can expand the way that the primary legislation is interpreted? I was talking in my amendment about trying to get hold of the profits of abuse, so that the penalties should include a profit-based penalty, but the Minister seems to be saying, “Yes, we can do that with secondary legislation”. Is that really what he is saying?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. In order to get a profit, one has to start with turnover. A detailed mechanism is required to look at how these P&Ls work and, rather than being in the Bill, this needs to be examined as a technical exercise. There needs to be a methodology put together for it; we will therefore do that in secondary legislation.

Amendments 112 to 120 relate to online content take-down powers and were tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay but presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These amendments would give trading standards departments in Great Britain the power to apply to a court for online interface orders and interim online interface orders to modify, restrict or take down illegal content displayed online.

We welcome the spirit of my noble friend’s amendments. Indeed, the Government have published their consultation response on proposals to empower additional enforcers, besides the CMA, to apply to a court for online interface orders. We have committed to give this additional power to public designated enforcers. These enforcers include, but go beyond, trading standards departments—for example, sector regulators such as Ofcom, which already have consumer enforcement powers under Part 3 of the Bill. We would be pleased to discuss with noble Lords how best to enact these important changes to ensure that the use of this power is governed by adequate procedures.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Is it therefore envisaged that the Government will give extra support to local trading standards officers, so that they will have these take-down powers? That seems to be the implication of what the Minister is saying—that it is not just Ofcom or the CMA but that there will be local enforcement as well, so there will be that combination.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Just to add to that question, is the Minister saying, “It’s going to happen but we just need to get the procedures right and add them”? Is that really all we are waiting for?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lords. That is indeed the spirit of what we are saying. We are, in the Bill, giving a power to the courts that will contain the online interface orders. The Government have published a consultation to enable additional enforcers, including the CMA, to apply to a court for these online orders. We are saying that, within the current architecture, we believe that we have the power to do what is required, but that we can make changes after the fact to ensure that the power is governed by adequate procedures.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, that is slightly eliding the situation. The Minister was talking about the CMA but, earlier, I understood him to be talking about trading standards. Are trading standards going to get those powers and is it just a question of ensuring that we get the procedures sorted out?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. There is obviously a little confusion about this, so we will need to set it out, which we will do between Committee and Report, to ensure that we know precisely the order of events here.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

That is important, because the Minister was talking about the actions in the court while the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I were concerned not just with that but with where the enforcement law is going to come from. In the Minister’s letter to us, it would be most helpful if he could set out who will have those enforcement powers and how the mechanisms will work, given the interface between the different enforcing agencies. That would give consumers a degree of comfort.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I am happy to do that. We will look at that in a bit more detail and write accordingly.

We come to some minor technical government amendments, Amendments 121, 123, 124 and 128, which in the main are minor and consequential. They are intended to provide clarity on how the relevant provisions function and on continuity between the current consumer enforcement regime and the reformed regime under Part 3. I hope these government amendments will be supported. I thank noble Lords once again for their amendments and for their considered remarks on this group.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he will take another look at Clause 157(5) regarding the amount of monetary penalty that can be imposed. The limitations seem to be there in black and white, yet the Minister is saying that secondary legislation can change that subsection in due course. If he cannot give me an answer now, would he be able to write to all of us? This is an important point.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I am happy to clarify that in writing.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response, which I will come back to in a moment.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bassam, for their support for my amendment. It is small but, I hope, would be highly effective if it were accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I spent a long time debating the Online Safety Act last year. It is clear that online marketplaces are not covered. My noble friend the Minister mentioned user-to-user sites and search engines. They are obviously online marketplaces and highly significant businesses—I have mentioned Amazon but there are others—and I do not think the Department for Business and Trade should be agnostic about harmful materials sold on these sites.

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on Amendment 110 for the sensitivity that they have shown on this difficult topic. I am grateful to my noble friend for the offer of a meeting to look at the scope of the Bill before Report. I will of course withdraw Amendment 110 at this stage, but I look forward to that meeting and further discussions on this important topic.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

121: Clause 167, page 110, line 29, after “daily rate,” insert “for each day,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

123: Clause 189, page 126, line 31, after “daily rate,” insert “for each day”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

124: Clause 192, page 129, line 4, after “daily rate,” insert “for each day”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Crawley for bringing forward this group of amendments relating to Schedule 16, which is introduced by Chapter 6, Clause 207. They seek to amend Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Amendments 124A and 124B appear to add clarity without altering the intention of the Bill as written. Having said that, we would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any reason these changes should not be enacted.

Amendment 124C would make a more substantial change to financial penalties. The current level 3 is no deterrent or obstruction. A mere £1,000 is just petty cash for most businesses, whereas level 5, which is an unlimited fine, would serve as a deterrent and perhaps support some co-operation in investigation. We would like to hear from the Minister whether there has been any assessment of the suitability of obstruction being a level 3 fine since the Consumer Rights Act came into law in 2015. We also seek clarification on whether this is the right place to make such a change, given that its impact would be much wider.

Amendments 125, 126 and 127, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, with the support of my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, make a lot of sense in pursuing investigations in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just England and Wales. That was succinctly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so I shall not repeat the point. This would obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government. If the Government agree on the merits, is this something they have discussed with their Scottish counterparts?

The amendments in this group are sensible and designed to be helpful. They should be supported. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and their considered contributions regarding Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which details the investigatory powers available to consumer law enforcers. As many noble Lords have noted, building a case against rogue traders and rectifying bad business practices not only starts with but depends on enforcers having the right powers to investigate suspected breaches. This is important for all enforcers, but especially so for local authority trading standards departments that typically exercise the full range of Schedule 5 powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that trading standards and other consumer enforcers have the requisite powers to carry out their important work, so we value the perspectives shared by noble Lords today.

Amendment 124A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would allow “articles” that fall outside the definition of “goods” to be seized and detained by enforcers when exercising their seizure power under paragraph 28 of Schedule 5. I thank my noble friend for this amendment and hasten to reassure him that its intent is, in our view, comprehensively achieved by the statute as it stands. The definition of “goods” under Schedule 5 already encompasses any tangible moveable items. It is not restricted to the goods sold by the trader to consumers. Further, other provisions in Schedule 5, such as the power under paragraph 29 to seize documents where an enforcer reasonably suspects they may be required as evidence in proceedings, can be relied on should there be any doubt as to whether such items are seizable. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.

On Amendment 124B, on breaking open a vehicle, I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling it. This relates to the power under paragraph 31 that allows enforcers either to require a person to break open a container or to open a container themselves in order to seize and detain goods, among other things. It is indeed important that investigators are not frustrated by arguments about what constitutes a “container” and therefore the current definition is broad and means anything in which goods may be stored. Therefore, the definition is capable of including a vehicle that is storing, or may be being used to store, goods which may disclose a breach of legislation.

However, enforcers must consider what exercise of investigatory powers is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, an enforcer may inspect products under paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 for the purposes of checking the compliance of those products with relevant legislation. If the product in question is a vehicle, an enforcer cannot break open the vehicle as that is allowed only for certain purposes, which do not include product inspection. Therefore, I hope my noble friend is reassured that the statute is already sufficiently permissive in the appropriate circumstances and will not press his amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister seems to have said two directly conflicting things—that you cannot do something, but that he hopes that his noble friend is convinced that the powers are wide enough. Did we mishear him?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I hope that the noble Lord did not misunderstand me. I think we said that this is already covered in legislation. The definition is capable of including a vehicle that is or may be being used to store goods that may disclose a breach of legislation. We are being clear that the definition of “goods” is sufficiently broad to include goods or vehicles. I was coming on to say that an enforcer may inspect products under paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 for the purposes of checking the compliance of those products with relevant legislation, so we are tying this back to the relevant legislation. We believe that the definitions are already sufficiently wide and therefore there is no need to further legislate.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

That is beginning to be helpful, but the Minister will be aware that different local authorities are receiving different legal advice. Some are comfortable with the definition that he has given and others are uncomfortable with it. At some point, possibly during Report, a Pepper v Hart definition that solidly allows legal officers in local authorities to make the decision that a car is a container in particular circumstances would, at the very least, be helpful. Perhaps adopting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would be even more so.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I was not aware that there are different definitions in different local authorities. That seems a valid point to address, so we will look at it before Report.

Amendment 124C is on fines for obstructing enforcement officers, for which I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas. This addresses the question of the appropriate level of fines for the offence of obstructing an enforcement officer, under paragraph 36 of Schedule 5. Currently, the fine must not exceed level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000. Amendment 124C would increase that to level 5—an unlimited amount. I fully agree with my noble friend that any sort of obstruction, whether intentionally failing to comply with instructions or knowingly giving misleading information, is a serious matter that must be subject to criminal enforcement.

The current level of the fines was subject to previous government consultation ahead of the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It was set to reflect the deterrent purpose of the offence, proportionately and consistently with comparable criminal offences. For example, the penalty for obstructing a police officer or an officer of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is set at a maximum of £1,000, which is level 3. We consider that the current level of these fines continues to be proportionate to the offence, consistent with comparable regimes. I once again thank my noble friend for his consideration of this issue and hope that my explanation persuades him not to press his amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Crawley, for tabling Amendment 125, which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It would end the prohibition on enforcers to use information provided by a person in response to a written information notice in criminal proceedings against that person. Prohibitions of this sort apply throughout the UK legal system and serve to help protect a person from self-incrimination when enforcement authorities are given broad powers to send information notices to compel the production of information.

The Government have listened carefully to trading standards departments, which consider that removing this prohibition would enable them to gather evidence needed for consumer prosecutions more easily. We have been told that using other information-gathering powers comes with operational challenges, such as having to resource travel outside the local area to carry out investigations. We are keen to work with enforcers to address these challenges. However, this prohibition is an important protection. It safeguards a right that is recognised under English common law and the Human Rights Act.

In summary, Amendment 125 stems from an operational issue that does not justify rolling back well-established legal protections. I therefore hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move this amendment.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Are the Government really saying, more or less, that they do not recognise that the world has gone digital? Will the Minister spell out the principles of common law that prohibit them from allowing trading standards officers to do what we set out in the amendments?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

This says that the Government have the overarching legislative position, but the trading standards departments operate locally, and it is important that central government listens to local government. That consultation listened carefully to the trading standards departments and has come back saying that they believe that removing this prohibition would enable them to gather evidence better and more easily for consumer protection. We follow the local authorities in their requirements.

I turn to the use of investigatory powers across the UK. Amendments 126 and 127, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay and presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would permit any trading standards department based anywhere in Great Britain to carry out investigations anywhere in the UK. Current law already allows English and Welsh trading standards departments to use their investigatory powers in parts of England and Wales outside that department’s local area. The same is true for trading standards departments in Scotland, which can already use their investigatory powers anywhere in Scotland.

Extending the powers to investigate across the UK fails to recognise that Scotland has its own legal jurisdiction separate from the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that consumer protection is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, where trading standards are a central government function, in contrast to Great Britain’s local authority model. These differences across the UK’s nations provide examples that I hope will persuade the noble Lord not to move Amendments 126 and 127.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I want to tempt the noble Lord to give us a bit more explanation on this. If I understood what he said rightly, it is quite in order for trading standards officers to begin an investigation in their local authority areas and, because it is clearly a broader issue and a company they are looking at operates nationally, it is okay for them to go after it elsewhere. But, when an English trading standards authority wishes to pursue someone in Scotland, is the Minister really saying that, because the Scottish law is different and so on, they could not mount an investigation that had to take place partly in Scotland because that is where the company is operating or trading from? That seems a bit of a gap in provision if it is the case and, if it is not, I would have thought that there needs to be some form of understanding and set of protocols between and across the authorities operating on each side of the border. I am thinking particularly of border authorities in Northumbria and Cumbria working with trading standards authorities in the lowlands. This must be an issue there quite regularly.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

What we are referring to here is that, within these legal jurisdictions, there are differences, not least of all the way prosecutions are conducted in England and Wales versus Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each of those jurisdictions can operate holistically within these jurisdictions. I will write to clarify, but I am pretty sure that the UK remains a united kingdom and, if there is a requirement for someone in England to speak to someone in Scotland, that can still happen. I will find out exactly how it does.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The noble Lord is such a strong unionist that I would be surprised if that were not the case.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

When the Minister writes that letter, perhaps he could extend it to include the United Kingdom Internal Market Act because that seems not to have been taken into consideration. Some of us here today—at least two of us—participated in the lengthy discussions about differing standards across borders and how they might be enforced, and this seems to fall well into that territory. What consideration has been made of that Act in drawing up the terms of the Bill? It would be helpful if the letter set out the various positions within the internal market Act and how they have been represented in the Bill.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. I share his interest in this matter, and that was exactly what I was intending to examine. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act is a fundamental new piece of architecture that, on us exiting the EU, allows us to trade as one single nation, and I will always be promoting that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers to my amendments, particularly for his offer of a continuing dialogue between Committee and Report. It seems clear to me that there is some different understanding out there regarding the ambit of the powers. I am content with the answers that he has given but would like to make sure that not only is that understood but that that understanding can have effect without something being added to the Bill. However, that is a conversation that we can conveniently have not now, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

128: Schedule 17, page 348, line 13, at end insert—
“Estate Agents Act 1979
A1 In section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work), in subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (ba) for “section 217, 218 or 219 of the Enterprise Act 2002” substitute “section 155, 158 or 162 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”; (b) in paragraph (bb) for “section 217 of the Enterprise Act 2002” substitute “section 155 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Estate Agents Act 1979 as a result of the repeal by the Bill of Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

I actually have a story about the Balmacara Hotel in Scotland, where I think I was the victim of a fake review. If it was not a fake review, it was certainly a review done less than accurately—but the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is not here to hear the full story. I beg to move.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this third group, concerning banned practices. I will take them not necessarily in numerical order.

I start with Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would ban in all circumstances the marketing of counterfeit and dangerous products online. Misleading claims in marketing are already offences under consumer protection law and, for unsafe products, product safety law. The Bill makes it clear that online marketplaces, which can facilitate the sale of these products, must act with professional diligence. This can include taking appropriate steps to ensure that counterfeit and dangerous products are not sold or promoted in a marketplace.

The Government recently consulted on strengthening the public understanding of those duties. Our response to that consultation committed us to undertake further work with stakeholders, including platforms, other business stakeholders and consumer groups, in order to identify the scope and content of further guidance in this area and how that work should best be communicated and set out; I would welcome the noble Baroness’s input into that work. Further, the product safety review includes proposals specifically aimed at tackling the sale of unsafe goods online. The Government will publish a response to that consultation in due course; again, I look forward to being able to share that with the noble Baroness and to discussing next steps.

Ultimately, online platforms have brought huge consumer benefits, including by vastly increasing the range of products available to consumers. The Government are committed to ensuring that platforms bear appropriate responsibility for ensuring that unsafe or counterfeit products do not reach consumers, but we seek to do so thoughtfully and in consultation with the public and industry to ensure that any new regulation does not jeopardise those consumer benefits or harm economic growth. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard this, will feel able not to move her amendment.

Amendment 144, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would give public enforcers a tailored power to require that the marketing of fake or counterfeit products was removed from the internet. The Government consultation response that I just mentioned also includes a commitment to empower additional enforcers to apply to court for interim and final online interface orders under Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill. These orders facilitate the removal of online content that breaches consumer law. In that context, I assure the noble Baroness that we welcome and intend to honour the spirit of the amendment. I look forward to further discussion on this matter with noble Lords. I hope that, with this reassurance, the noble Baroness will not move Amendment -144.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for Amendment 135 and his input on this matter of fake reviews. Amendment 135 would add commercial practices related to fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. The Government agree that the law against fake reviews should be strengthened. Following our recent consultation on proposals to tackle fake reviews, and recognising the strong parliamentary interest in this issue, the Government have set out in their response our intention to add the relevant practices to Schedule 19 to the Bill.

It is important to get the details right. I would like to work with your Lordships to ensure that the new rules meet our shared aims of reducing the number of fake reviews that customers encounter online and being clear to businesses on what their duties are when publishing reviews. I would be delighted if noble Lords would meet me to discuss this further. I hope that what I have just set out will mean that my noble friend Lord Lindsay feels comfortable not to move his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for Amendment 133. It would add drip pricing to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19 to prevent traders adding mandatory fees to the price of a product during the purchasing process. Likewise, the Government agree that the law should be strengthened to protect consumers from hidden fees that can cause them to pay more than they have been led to expect. As we set out in our response to the consultation on improving price transparency, published on 24 January, it is the Government’s intention expressly to prohibit the drip pricing of mandatory fees in this Bill. I would be delighted to discuss this with noble Lords. I hope this means that the noble Baroness will feel comfortable not to move her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, all these messages about being prepared to talk further are very welcome; I am sure that we will take the Minister up on them.

Part of the issue about drip pricing and the Government’s response to it is the distinction that they have now made between mandatory extra charges and optional ones. I have a horrible feeling that most of the examples we can think of, such as the airline example, will be classified as optional extra charges, which will not be covered by Schedule 19. Can the Minister say more about that?

I think we are all on the same page but a lot of optional charges are misleading in the sense that they are really charges; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about families sitting together or your luggage going on a long-haul flight. I am sorry that we keep quoting flights, because there are many other areas where this applies, but it seems to me that the Government have made a false distinction here between things that you have to pay, which are mandatory and which the Minister is saying will go under Schedule 19, and the rest, which are most people’s experience of drip pricing; as the Minister was explaining, that will not be covered—but I might have misunderstood what he was saying.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. A distinction has been made as per that wording. As the consultation has come back, there has been a view on the distinction between those two areas, but the whole point of consulting noble Lords between Committee and Report is to allow further investigation, discussion and/or justification of that.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I want to persist a bit more on that. We are now almost at the end of Committee, and Report is probably two or three weeks away. That is not a lengthy period in which to get the drafting right and for us to have that discussion, so I ask that we get a really early draft of these amendments. The wording is important and that will help my noble friend Lady Jones to form a view about whether it covers what we are after here.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

This is of great concern to many consumer groups, so it is important to publish and make it publicly available so that people are able to examine, think about and get legal advice on it. It is not just the people in this Committee but broader society that really needs to have the chance to input into this crucial issue.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for those interventions. I am happy to get this to noble Lords as quickly as possible. The whole point of the consultation is to allow consumer groups, which are very vocal on this issue, to be heard, and they have already fed into the process, but I take the point about expedition.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendment 130 on product packaging. It seeks to legislate against traders potentially copying packaging or other reference material in order to mislead consumers into thinking that the product in question is from the original manufacturer or mislead them about the specifications or characteristics of the product. I thank the noble Lord for giving us a number of examples, which we can all recognise. I agree with him about the importance of ensuring that consumers are not misled.

However, we believe the concerns underpinning this amendment are already addressed through the prohibition on misleading actions in Clause 224 and the banned practice in paragraph 14 of Schedule 19 to the Bill. These prohibit promotions that mislead consumers into thinking that they are purchasing a product or service from a particular manufacturer when they are not. The provision in Schedule 19 achieves what this amendment seeks to do and applies equally to all products and services. Should a trader try to copy another well-known product’s packaging, this would be deliberately misleading to the consumer looking to purchase a product, as currently set out in the banned practice in paragraph 14 of the Schedule and Clause 224.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to previous CMA work on this issue. I am pleased to say that there is currently an in-depth CMA study of the grocery section, which has already spurred government action on price labelling rules. The study continues and I would expect it to pick up poor practices of the sort he highlighted. The noble Lord also made an important point about the importance of effectiveness. The additional powers given to the CMA and the courts under Part 3 aim to achieve just that. I hope he will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his Amendment 131, which seeks to exclude universities from the currently banned practice of advertising that includes a direct appeal to children to buy products or to persuade their parents or other adults to buy products for them. This schedule replicates the banned practice in paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

There is no evidence that these regulations, which have stood since then, have prevented universities or similar institutions from providing information on themselves or the courses they offer. The banned practice in question is unlikely to stop universities or other providers advertising their courses. However, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, further information on application can be clarified in a non-statutory way, such as through the guidance that will be issued for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, also pointed out the importance of universities providing accurate information. This is an area where there has previously been enforcement action, which highlights the importance of it being within the scope of consumer law. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel comfortable not moving his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am pleased to have added my name to Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which deals with the issue of submitting or creating fake reviews by adding it to the list in Schedule 19 of commercial practices which would always be considered unfair. This is the issue that we touched on in the earlier debate. I am pleased that we have the chance to raise this today because it has been an issue of concern for some time. It is good to get the chance to debate and pursue this, and it is good to hear that the Government are also keen to do that.

We argue that this is not just about the effect fake reviews have on consumers; they affect businesses as well. They damage the livelihoods of many small traders—restaurants and hotels, for example—when their business is deliberately targeted by damaging reviews, or the local competition down the road receives glowing fake reviews which take trade away from the legitimate trader, so this has a business element as well as a consumer element. At the same time, Which? reports that the proliferation of fake reviews for online product sales results in consumers being more than twice as likely to choose poor quality products. We heard a little bit about how that works in the earlier debate.

Urgent action is undoubtedly needed to bring quality standards back into online sales and marketing so that people are not duped. As we have heard, since the amendment was tabled, the Government have produced their response to the consultation on improving price transparency and product information for consumers. It proposes that the Government will add fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. I am grateful to the Minister for hosting a meeting last week where we had a chance to discuss this. It is good to hear that the Government have finally decided to act on it.

However, there are still some outstanding concerns. Concerns have been raised by Trustpilot and others that the fact that the proposed wording lacks clarity. The Government saying that they will work with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to clarify the wording is a sign that they have not yet got this quite right. Can the Minister clarify the timescale for that additional work? When will we see the outcome of it?

Concern has also been raised that the Government’s proposals do not address the role played by internet service providers and social media in promoting fake reviews. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this issue. What action will we take against those who host and reproduce these fake reviews, often knowingly?

Concern has been expressed that the penalty for promoting fake reviews is subject only to civil, not criminal, enforcement. Can the Minister explain a bit more about why that decision was taken? In the meantime, we argue that our Amendment 137 addresses those concerns. We look forward to further talks along the lines that the Minister has proposed, and we hope that he will agree to work with us and the Committee to produce a government amendment that is both clear and comprehensive.

The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Holmes, helpfully sought greater clarity on consumer rights to prevent consumers being misled or manipulated. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly mentioned the additional measures needed to protect us from rogue traders. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for asking a series of small but important questions around his almost probing amendments. It is important to have clarification on the record, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give it.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, helpfully raised the issue of good faith and asked how we can bring some standards back into trading and the exchange of information. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that.

We have had a positive discussion on these important points. It is good to hear that there will be further discussion. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I turn now to the fourth group of amendments, which concern unfair commercial practices.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 137, which would add commercial practices related to fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. The Government agree that the law against fake reviews should be strengthened. Following our recent consultation on proposals to tackle fake reviews and recognising the parliamentary interest in this topic, the Government have set out their intention to add the relevant practices to Schedule 19. It is important that we get the details right.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the concerns raised by Trustpilot around the hosting of fake reviews as well as the hosting and facilitation of fake review training. The Government are sympathetic to these issues. My ministerial colleagues have previously met Trustpilot to discuss such matters. I assure both noble Lords that the hosting of fake reviews is already addressed by our proposals; that said, I would be happy to meet them to discuss this topic further. For the time being, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.

I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments. Amendment 138A specifically references “pricing” when considering whether a trader is misleading the average consumer. Clause 224 already states that

“an overall presentation which is likely to deceive the average consumer”

is a misleading action. Price clearly forms a part of this overall presentation. I understand the importance of the regulations being robust and clear and I greatly appreciate my noble friend’s close scrutiny of these clauses, which was very much apparent in his remarks. We believe, however, that such a point is better reflected in the accompanying guidance to the Bill. I will ensure that my noble friend’s point is reflected as such.

Amendment 138B specifically seeks to add ignoring or denying consumer rights to the definition of a misleading action. Should a trader make a false or misleading claim about the rights that the consumer has, with a view to denying, ignoring or misinforming them, the existing wording in Clause 224(1)(a), which prohibits the provision of “misleading information” on a

“matter relevant to a transactional decision”,

would apply.

Amendment 140 on misleading omissions would in effect require information that is relevant to a decision about the purchase of a good or service to be provided to the consumer. I believe that the current Clause 225 is an appropriate requirement for information that a consumer needs to be provided. As this requirement is well established in law, it gives traders and consumers certainty on what the information requirements are. The amendment could also give rise to uncertainty in the legislation, which may place additional burdens on traders, such as the potential costs of gathering such information. Although I understand and appreciate what my noble friend is trying to achieve with this amendment, I believe that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between consumer protection and not overburdening traders.

Amendment 142 would add examples of where a trader is not acting in good faith to the definition of professional diligence in this chapter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for raising these issues. Misleading consumers in any way that may cause them to take a different transactional decision is already prohibited. Furthermore, there are specific provisions that protect consumers against undue influence and prohibit exploiting vulnerabilities. Clause 226, for example, protects consumers against aggressive practices that exploit any vulnerability. Given the nature of these exploitative practices, we consider that they would be better explained in guidance accompanying the Bill. I would be happy to discuss this with my noble friend ahead of that new guidance being prepared.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for tabling Amendment 143 to change what constitutes an invitation to purchase. Actions that are considered an invitation to purchase attract specific consumer rights. For example, traders making an invitation to purchase must provide the individual with the information listed in Clause 228. The Government believe that the changes proposed by this amendment would expand the definition too far; it therefore has the possibility of bringing with it unintended consequences. We are of course committed to protecting consumers. Provisions in Chapter 1 of this part of the Bill already achieve a similar aim to this amendment, prohibiting traders from making misleading statements or omissions in respect of all commercial practices.

Amendment 145B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seeks to extend the discovery period of an offence under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill from one year to two years. Again, I understand his rationale for this. It can often take time for trading standards to gather the evidence to pursue a prosecution against a trader who is breaking the law. However, it is also a key principle of our justice system that investigations should be carried out efficiently and in a timely manner. This is important in protecting the rights of both consumers and those accused of criminal offences. We believe that one year to bring criminal proceedings following discovery is the right balance between expedience and giving authorities the time that they need to carry out investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers, by and large, but I do not understand how Clause 245 is supposed to work. I cannot see how, in its wording, it provides protection for vulnerable persons. I look specifically at Clause 245(2), which states:

“References … to the average consumer … are to be read as references to an average member of the group mentioned in subsection (1)”,


which refers to a vulnerable consumer. So the wording of the Bill is reducing the level of comprehension required and therefore the level of information being provided for the comprehension of that vulnerable group. It therefore makes vulnerable groups open to exploitation. What am I misunderstanding here? In what way does Clause 245 provide additional protection for vulnerable groups? How does it raise the standards that traders have to meet when they are faced with a vulnerable group?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The intention of Clause 244, combined with Clause 245, is to afford a higher level of protection in legislation to those who are vulnerable. It sets out how the “average consumer” should be interpreted regarding vulnerable persons. Therefore, if there is some confusion about their rights having been diminished in some way when in fact the Bill is intended to enhance those rights, I think we should get clarification, so I will write to my noble friend on that matter.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I shall be clearer after reading my noble friend’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

138: After Schedule 19, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleChapter 1 of Part 4: consequential amendmentsAdministration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
1 In section 40(3A) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors), for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)
2 In section 12(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (false representations as to royal approval or award, etc.) for the words from “and” to “2008” substitute “has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and, for the purposes of this section, a commercial practice is unfair if it would be unfair for the purposes of that Chapter”.Hallmarking Act 1973 (c. 43)
3 In section 1 of the Hallmarking Act 1973 (prohibited descriptions of unhallmarked articles)—(a) in subsection (4C) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”;(b) in subsection (4D) for the words from “satisfying” to “action)” substitute “an unfair commercial practice involving a misleading action for the purposes of that Chapter”.Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52)
4 In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 for paragraph (af) substitute—“(af) to any obligation arising by virtue of rights of redress under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;”.Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
5 In paragraph 17 of Schedule 15D to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosures), omit sub-paragraph (k).Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
6 (1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 114A(2)(bb) (forfeiture of infringing copies, etc.: England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(3) In section 114B(15) (forfeiture of infringing copies, etc.: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence”, for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 204A(2)(bb) (forfeiture of illicit recordings: England and Wales or Northern Ireland), for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(5) In section 204B(15) (forfeiture of illicit recordings: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(6) In section 297C(2)(bb) (forfeiture of unauthorised decoders: England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(7) In section 297D(15) (forfeiture of unauthorised decoders: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26)
7 (1) The Trade Marks Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) In section 91 (power of commissioners for revenue and customs to disclose information), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”(3) In section 97(8)(d) (forfeiture; England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 98(14) (forfeiture; Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)
8 In EA 2002—(a) in Schedule 14 (provisions about disclosure of information) at the appropriate place insert— “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”;(b) in Schedule 15 (enactments conferring functions) at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)
9 -In paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to the Licensing Act 2003 (personal licence: relevant offences), for the words from “regulation” to “2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
11 In paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 2006 (specified persons, descriptions of disclosures etc for the purposes of section 948), omit paragraph (j).Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
12 In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, at the appropriate place insert—“Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Chapter 1 of Part 4.”Consumer Rights Act 2015 (c. 15)
13 (1) Schedule 5 to the CRA 2015 (investigatory powers: enforcer’s legislation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 10—(a) omit “regulation 19(1) or (1A) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277);”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—“section 229(1), (2) or (3) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”(3) In paragraph 18(b) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Online Safety Act 2023 (c. 50)
14 (1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 59(6) (“illegal content” etc) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(3) In section 218(3)(b) (power to amend section 40) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 222(6)(b) (power to amend Schedule 7) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Schedule makes amendments that are consequential on the revocation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

147: Clause 249, page 164, line 20, leave out subsection (2) to (6) and insert—
“(2) Schedule (Chapter 1 of Part 4: consequential amendments) contains further consequential amendments relating to this Chapter.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment moves the consequential amendments to primary legislation that were previously in clause 249 into a new Schedule (see my amendment to insert a new Schedule after Schedule 19). The new Schedule contains the moved consequential amendments and additional ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group because I am very aware that we will have a more substantive debate on subscriptions in the coming groups, so forgive me if I am very brief on some of the issues raised.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We have consistently argued for clarity, and he is right to hold our feet to the fire over the meaning of the consumer bringing the contract to the end. I am grateful for him probing a little more on what that actually means, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s clarification on this.

I was concerned when I first read the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that they seemed to be an unnecessary watering down of the rights of consumers under the consumer contracts regulations and introduced some ambiguity where there had previously been clarity. He has gone some way to clarifying what he meant by this. It is very unusual for me to be at odds with him. He might know far more about the subject than I did, because I was just going on what I was reading. I would be happy to talk to him more about it.

I of course understand that some mobile devices are too small to display complex pre-contract information. I am sure that we have all been guilty of ticking the box to say that we accept the terms and conditions when we have not actually read them. However, there should be a responsibility on traders to publish the pre-contract details in a simpler form, using better digital design, rather than being given more legal flexibility about how that information is communicated, which rather lets them off the hook. Maybe this is a discussion that we could carry on outside this debate.

Meanwhile, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for raising the question of microbusinesses and what conditions should apply before the subscription contract regime kicks in. He raised a very interesting question which I have some sympathy with, about very local traders in a locality such as a farmer’s vineyard. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this, because we need to protect against the unintended consequences of what he is saying. We need to double check that we are not encouraging rogue businesses to re-describe themselves to get through the loophole, but I am sure that he will address that point when he replies.

As noble Lords can see, I am sitting on the fence on most of these amendments, and I am happy to stay there for the time being. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, which might persuade me either way.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the group of amendments, which is concerned with subscription contracts. I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this topic and for his amendment. Amendment 148 would alter the definition of a subscription contract, meaning that contracts where a consumer does not have the right to bring a contract to an end would be brought within the scope of the chapter.

If we were to expand the definition in this way, many parts of the chapter would serve no purpose. For example, if a consumer were to enter a one-year contract for a service which had fixed payments spaced throughout the year, but the contract expires automatically at the end of the year and no further payment would be taken, the consumer would not need regular reminder notices about their contract as they would not have the right to end that contract before it expires. If, however, the contract automatically renews at the end of the year, rolling over into to another year-long contract, then the consumer has an opportunity to bring a contract to an end and therefore would benefit from being reminded that they can end their contract before it auto-renews.

I will give another example, as my noble friend requested, which may illustrate the point more clearly. If a consumer were to enter a contract with a builder for house renovations and pays in instalments, the consumer would rightly not have a right to cancel the contract before the payment period ends. The provision in the Bill would therefore not apply. Of course, where contracts do not contain a right to be brought to an end, they will continue to be regulated by the existing consumer contracts regulations 2013, where applicable. I hope that my noble friend finds this explanation satisfactory, and that he will therefore feel comfortable withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the way he has set that out. Will he explain how much consultation there was and the nature of it over the introduction of Schedule 21?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I think I should write to the noble Lord to give that in detail.

I turn to the exclusion for microbusinesses. Amendments 148A and 148B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mott, would replace the requirement for a business to be unincorporated in order to benefit from the delivery of foodstuffs exclusion, with the requirement to be a microbusiness as per Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The purpose of the unincorporated aspect of the exclusion is to safeguard against larger businesses restructuring in such a way as to benefit from the exclusion, ensuring that only microbusinesses benefit and that there is greater consumer protection in the food subscriptions market.

My noble friend has raised an interesting point about the application of this chapter to certain incorporated microbusinesses, such as local farm shops, that I am keen to explore. However, the amendment as drafted may not work as intended. That is because Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act sets out only broad criteria by which microbusinesses should be defined and defers much of the detail to regulations that have yet to be made. With that said, I am happy to work with my noble friend further to understand his concerns and to ensure that the exclusion captures the right businesses. I therefore hope he is suitably reassured.

In her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the important point about ensuring that the exclusion for microbusinesses remains narrow and well-targeted to ensure maximum consumer protection. I wholeheartedly agree with her on this matter, and I assure her that that is the Government’s intention. I thank noble Lords once again for their amendments and for their valuable contributions to this debate.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to my amendment, which I will read with care when I have Hansard in front of me. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, for scripting such a simple and clear amendment. We are acting as co-signatories, and it seeks, very simply, to exempt third sector charities from the effective limitations on subscription contracts in the Bill.

I appreciate that there have already been several attempts to find a solution to this conundrum, including amendments in the Commons. I understood that Ministers were not particularly attracted to this solution, which seeks to list charity membership subscriptions which qualify for gift aid as an excluded contract pursuant to Clause 253. We were a bit reassured by the letter that Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister in another place, wrote to the National Trust, setting out the Government’s position. He said that it was not their intention to create uncertainty about how different legislation might apply. His letter, dated 23 November, also said that cross-departmental work was being undertaken to consider whether clarification would be beneficial. Having listened to everybody this evening, it is pretty clear that it would be beneficial.

If this approach does not meet the happiness threshold for Ministers, this debate is the opportunity for the Minister to explain where the Government’s internal departmental thinking has got to and what other solutions might be available. The Minister argued in his letter to the National Trust that Chapter 3 of Part 4 is unlikely to apply because there is no contract to be deemed a subscription contract. Given the net value of gift aid to charities—for the National Trust it is £47 million, English Heritage is £100 million et cetera—we think there needs to be clarity. We cannot leave a degree of uncertainty. It certainly does not appeal to us to do that at this stage, given the law of unintended consequences. We cannot rely on an assurance that it is deemed unlikely that the legislation would have the effect that many of the charities that we have been talking to have said it would. The charities need certainty and clarity as well.

If it is not this amendment, what amendment will be brought forward? As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, carnage could definitely occur on Report if we do not get a ready-made solution. It needs to be put right and put right now.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mendoza for moving this amendment and for his compelling speech. I also thank other noble Lords who spoke so passionately on this issue.

Amendment 149 would exclude charity membership subscription contracts eligible for gift aid from the scope of the Bill’s subscription contracts chapter. Many of us have heard strong representations from stakeholders on this matter and it has been valuable to hear the contributions from noble Lords today. It is clear that a number of charitable organisations have concerns about the interaction between the Bill, the existing gift aid rules and the potential implications for their operating models.

Like everyone who spoke, I fully understand the valuable additional income that gift aid provides to charities; as my noble friend Lord Vaizey put it, we are absolutely on the same page as far as that is concerned. Moreover, I assure your Lordships that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to undermine this critical income for charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Before the Minister replies to that point, what is it about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, that is so objectionable? I heard the Minister say that charities are not usually excluded from the effects of legislation in the way that the amendment suggests, but I do not see why they could not be made exempt for this particular purpose.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. To take the latter point first, it is absolutely the case that charities are required to live within the statute book generally and are not given exclusions. To take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I accept that there are commercial elements to these donations. That may not be the primary purpose but they are commercial none the less, and there are examples where benefits are given to donors in return for donations.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

That is the exact opposite of what I was trying to get across, so obviously I was not being very clear. The point is that the vast majority of donors give donations to an organisation for the good work that it carries out, rather than because it is a subscription to a particular service. It is therefore not a transactional relationship. It is not, “I will pay you to get this delivered”; it is, “I will pay you because you do really good stuff and I want you to keep doing it”. It is a non-transactional relationship, while subscription contracts are a very transactional relationship. That is the point I was trying to get across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that he would come back on Report, but it would be helpful if he would come back before Report so that all noble Lords can consider how he does so and table amendments accordingly.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I can confirm that we will come back before Report. The objective is to get a solution for this issue and to have a satisfactory outcome, so that we avoid carnage in the other place.

[Lord Mendoza (Con)]

My Lords, I am so grateful for the support of noble Lords. The range of experience and advice we have had in this Room is admirable. It is incredible and so helpful that we have the chairman of the Fundraising Regulator right here. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the interjection of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. I had the same thought.