Copycat Websites (Government Services)

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), for their contributions.

I share the anger and frustration about the cause highlighted by the hon. Member for Islwyn. I took up the matter when some of my constituents highlighted cases involving passports and driving licences. It was not then formally part of my portfolio, but as my role has expanded, I have had more opportunity to influence the direction of policy. I am pleased to say that I think we are making progress, although I noted that the tone of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central suggested that more progress could and should be made.

To start with my glass half full, I will talk about the success of the Government’s vision for digital by default services, which is driven by a desire to give the public the kind of Government services that they expect. Those are services that are simple, fast and clear, and that can be accessed easily at times and in ways that suit people. There has been a step change thanks to the use of digital services that are now built more and more around the needs of users, not the Government. The Government Digital Service is an unequivocal success story of the present Government that needs to be talked about more, and I hope that whoever takes over—us or them, or anyone—will continue to build on that effective work.

The use of the Government Digital Service has the happy benefit that it saves money. Last year we saved more than £200 million on digital and technology-related expenditure as part of the overall £14 billion of efficiency savings achieved across the Government as a whole, and that was all achieved while continuing to drive improvements in how people access information and services. That is a clear example of how to get more for less.

There is much to be celebrated in the progress we are making, and much of that is down to the head of the Government Digital Service, the remarkable Mike Bracken. There are now 14 new, transformed, digital services being used by the public, and they comply with a stretching Government service standard. Their success is evident. For example, more than half of applications for carer’s allowance now come via the new digital channel. Digital can act as a catalyst for change. However, we recognise that high levels of digital take-up will be achieved only if the public feel confident about using Government services online. As the hon. Member for Islwyn and others pointed out, the problem of misleading third-party websites can dent that confidence.

Let me be clear: sites that try to palm themselves off as legitimate Government services need to be stopped. I am sure that that is something on which we all agree. Abuse involving such services can take a range of forms, all of which can have a negative impact, including brand abuse, which is the misuse of Government logos to imply affiliation with or endorsement by the Government. Phishing—that is with the letters “p” and “h”, Mr Gray, in case you were thinking of fishing, at which you are a dab hand—is the practice by which unscrupulous people try to acquire personal information, such as user names, passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity. Scamming websites are third-party sites that levy charges for access to Government services and claim to provide additional services that actually offer little or no value.

[Dr Whiteford]

The Minister makes an important point, but my correspondence with Government agencies indicates that those copycat websites are operating within the law. There is a compelling case that the easiest way to tackle the problem is through legislation, so will the Minister look again at that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I will turn to that point in a moment. I agree that some of these websites arguably work within the law. That causes a problem, so I shall explain how we plan to deal with that in a moment.

Citizens can now interact with the Government online by applying for passports, booking MOT tests for cars, obtaining replacement birth certificates and applying for driving licences. I am told that people can also apply online for a licence to be buried at sea. That is the least used Government service at the moment, but now that the application is digital, the attraction may increase. Many Government services are provided free of charge, but some, such as applying for a passport, involve a fee. The process is generally straightforward: follow the instructions and pay the charge—job done.

To find the websites on which to access the services they need, the vast majority of people will have to use an internet search engine, and that is where we come across the first difficulty. Most people inadvertently end up on misleading websites through the sponsored adverts section on search engines such as Google or Bing. The content on the Government’s site, gov.uk, is optimised to ensure that, as far as possible, it tops the rankings in search engine results but, unfortunately, the sponsored adverts section sits above the organic search results, so people who are unfamiliar with the layout of a search engine page often click on to the misleading website by mistake.

The Government have worked with the search engine providers to understand the terms and conditions they have adopted to guide the use of their sponsored ad slots. Although problem adverts are not necessarily illegal, they often break the search engine provider’s terms and conditions, but sometimes they are not actively removed unless complaints are received. We sat down with the Government Digital Service, Google and Bing to agree a mechanism for flagging adverts and websites in breach of search engines’ policies so that they can be taken down. The arrangements are operating effectively. Departments are working with search engine providers when such sites are identified so that the adverts can be removed. Search engine providers have introduced forms so that users can report problem websites, and we will continue to notify them of sites that are brought to our attention.

When we have discovered, or members of the public have highlighted, the misuse of Government logos, we have ensured that they are removed from offending sites. Such sites have included those for renewing driving licences. When necessary, we have used specialist lawyers. I am pleased that there has been a significant drop in the number of reports about websites misusing our logos and thus misleading users.

Some Government services are hit harder than others. Services that tend to involve one-off transactions are the ones to which such third-party websites offer access, such as for passport and driving licence applications, and for booking driving tests. Infrequency of use creates a problem because the users of services provided by Departments and their agencies may not be familiar with the look and feel of those sites, and the wide demographic base of users limits the impact of broad-based communication and education. That does not make the problem insurmountable, and nor does it mean that education about the best way to access Government services should not be part of our approach to tackle the problem, but we must do that creatively.

A further complication, which goes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, is the difficulty of categorising all activities of the websites that we have been talking about as bad or misleading. In 2012, the Office of Fair Trading looked into online commercial practices relating to Government services and concluded that it was not appropriate to take formal enforcement action. Its investigation did not reveal widespread attempts by non-Government websites to misrepresent their affiliation with the Government. Moreover, the OFT took the view that the overall depiction of the sites investigated, including their branding, colouring and images, did not create the misleading impression that they were official Government websites. Many of the sites carried statements explaining the nature of the service provided and disclaiming any official status or affiliation with the Government, and the OFT considered that those statements were sufficiently unambiguous and prominently displayed.

The OFT’s findings and the means by which such sites promote their offerings both bring us back to education. How do we help the users of our services to spot when they are on a Government website or that of a third party? How do we ensure that citizens and businesses can enjoy the benefits and additional value that competition through third-party provision of access to Government services can bring without fear of being exploited?

The number of complaints we receive about misleading websites still represents a small fraction of the total number of service users. Ensuring that the look and feel of Government services become more consistent, as well as providing access to such services through one site, will help our efforts to get users to the right place.

[Chris Evans]

The Minister says that the number of complaints made about copycat websites is quite low. Before raising the matter at last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s questions, I did some research into scams, and particularly scam mail. Only one in five crimes are being reported because of embarrassment or shame, or because people do not even know that they have been ripped off. Is there any evidence of how many people are not reporting when they are scammed by copycat websites?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some evidence before I conclude my speech; otherwise I will write to him. Although he raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, I am not aware of the difference between those who report misleading websites and people who choose not to report them, or of what that survey was based on.

We started an education campaign in July using social media to raise people’s awareness that when they want to use a Government website, they should start at gov.uk. To maintain momentum, there has been a focus on Twitter activity in subsequent themed weeks based on some of the main services that are being targeted by misleading websites. We have also worked with external organisations such as Which? In July, it published a consumer piece, “How to spot a copycat website”, which is an excellent guide from a trusted source for the public. We have also worked with digital journalism, and “Government Computing” published an awareness-raising piece on the #StartAtGOVUK campaign. We will continue to work on innovative ways to raise awareness, and any thoughts and suggestions from hon. Members will be most welcome.

We have also been leading a cross-Government approach to address individual complaints. For the first time ever, we have set up a webpage via which consumers can report copycat sites. Full details of that one-stop shop can be found on the gov.uk website, and it represents a modern and dynamic response that is appropriate to the online era.

I shall talk briefly about enforcement. In March, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), the then Minister, provided £120,000 in additional Government funding to the national trading standards e-crime team to support enforcement action against copycat websites. In late June, four search warrants were executed on properties, leading to the arrest of five people and the disruption of the operation of at least 25 copycat websites. A criminal investigation is ongoing.

Government agencies are individually proactive in this area. The Intellectual Property Office pursues, prosecutes and puts out of business the operators of websites offering copyright-infringing material that can be found through search results. I am pleased that the main search engine providers are fully engaged in supporting us in that.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a robust system that includes the use of a third-party security firm to find and shut down rogue sites that are engaged in phishing activity. In 2012-13, it shut down 560 rogue sites, and it has continued to warn taxpayers to be on their guard against fraudulent phishing e-mails after almost 75,000 fake e-mails were reported to the taxman between April and September this year. Those e-mails promised a tax refund, which is obviously incredibly tempting, and asked for the recipient’s name, address, date of birth, and bank and credit card details, including passwords and their mother’s maiden name. HMRC has worked with law enforcement agencies to help to close down more than 4,000 websites that are responsible for sending out such e-mails. It has made it clear that it never contacts customers who are due a tax refund by e-mail, as a letter is always sent through the post.

People’s behaviour and their expectations of online services are constantly evolving. We do not want to stifle innovation, but nor do we want to impact on websites that honestly and legitimately provide value-added services now, or those that could emerge in the future. I fully recognise that there is still work to be done, and we wrote to all MPs and peers recently to outline what activity we are undertaking.

Opposition Members referred to amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill. I am not sure whether the relevant amendments were debated in the Lords yesterday, but the Government did not support them, as they seem effectively to impose a burden to regulate such websites, rather than outlawing them. However, we will obviously look at any suggestions that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central makes.

[Chi Onwurah]

To clarify, the amendment is yet to be debated in the Lords. Will the Minister set out his position?

[Mr Vaizey]

As I understand the position, we oppose those proposals as they would impose a regulatory burden on the Government effectively to regulate these websites. It is not clear whether an amendment will be pressed to a Division, but I will keep in touch with the hon. Lady about the Government’s position, if it evolves.

I agreed with what may have been implied in some of the hon. Lady’s remarks about the need to work more closely with local government. The Government Digital Service has delivered a revolution in how the Government engage with the citizen, and that revolution could well be cascaded down, as it were, to local government. That is not to say that local government is not doing its own pioneering work, however.

The hon. Lady was right to talk about digital inclusion. On one level, I am on the front line of that, in terms of rolling out broadband and mobile services so that people can actually access online services, but the other part of the equation is encouraging people to use those services once they can access them. As she knows, the charity Go ON UK works with 60 stakeholders to encourage people to use these services. Many of the counties in charge of their own broadband roll-out schemes are also encouraging people to get online. We believe that the best way forward is a grass-roots campaign that works with charities that can get out to individuals, or encourage them to come to local community spaces, so that they can see the huge benefits of being online. As we roll out universal credit, the Government should look carefully at how we encourage people to access benefits online.

This has been a useful debate. Although this might not have come across because of my heavy cold, I feel almost as passionately about the subject as Opposition Members. Given the huge success of the Government Digital Service, with a genuine revolution in engagement with the citizen, it is important that that revolution is not marred by unscrupulous copycat websites. The Government have to strike a balance between those websites that are genuinely innovative and provide a useful service, and those that are either simply trying to fleece the customer or, even worse, to phish their contact details and then do even worse things with them. We are raising awareness through our campaign and working closely with the search engines, which is the right thing to do, because search engines are the means by which most people come across these websites. When there is a clear breach of the law, we are using agencies to enforce the law.