Finance Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

This is a mixed Finance Bill. It contains some measures with which the Opposition agree: the changes to personal allowances; the welcome increase in the annual investment allowance; the surcharge on banks; the provisions to encourage more to be spent on research and development; the provisions on carried interest—though they do not go far enough; and the anti-avoidance provisions for enterprise investment schemes, venture capital trusts and controlled foreign companies.

But the Bill also discloses some wrong priorities, which I shall list in no particular order. The changes to inheritance tax—it will not surprise Members to hear me mention this, in the light of our debate earlier—are a giveaway to the most well off in our society. The cut to corporation tax is a beggar-my-neighbour, downward, low-tax regime competition measure aimed at covering up the failures on productivity. We disagree with lowering the bank levy rate. The provisions on vehicle excise duty take us backwards by favouring gas guzzlers and penalising drivers of less dirty vehicles. Some 16 or 17 years ago, journalists would have called the marked increase to insurance premium tax a stealth tax.

The changes to the climate change levy are a step backwards that indicates the Government have lessened their commitment to the environment and can no longer make the laughable claim to be the greenest Government ever—it is one of a host of changes indicating that they are not serious about our environment. We disagree with the provisions on the direct recovery of debt that allow HMRC to take money out of someone’s bank account without a court order. They are doing this because they find, as so many people do, that the court system is costly and slow, but rather than change the court system, for which they are responsible, they are simply introducing a different rule for themselves. They have done the same in clause 48 with interest on judgment debts. It is one rule for them and another rule for the rest of us.

I warn the Government: they are straining our constitution. Late last week, they tabled about 75 amendments for Report stretching to 40 pages and dealing with highly technical matters, which suggests that they are not entirely sure what they are doing. Last week, we also saw the longest Standing Order in living memory detailing the changes to English votes. This is not a great way to treat our constitution.

Then we see the potential constitutional tussle with the House of Lords over tax credits, brought about by this Government’s decision to proceed with a fundamental change to tax credits, which will cost working families thousands of pounds, by using a statutory instrument rather than putting the provisions in this Finance Bill. Clearly, this Finance Bill, like all Finance Bills, would never have gone near the House of Lords. This Government tried to box clever by putting the tax credit changes in a statutory instrument and they have been caught swimming without trunks when the tide went out. It is a constitutional tussle that we did not need and it would not have happened if they had put those provisions in the Finance Bill.

We need to see this Finance Bill in the context of the economy. It is great news that employment is up, albeit that too many of the jobs are low paid and insecure. It is great that, at last, we have some economic growth that extends outside London and the south-east. Before Conservative Members start cheering too much, there are ill winds blowing domestically. The deficit on the balance of payments, at 6.5% of gross domestic product, is the highest in peacetime. Inflation targets have been missed, and productivity stalled, which the Government try to mask with a change in the corporation tax rate. GDP per capita, after six years of the Conservatives leading a Government in this country, is still in recovery. Living standards are, at last, starting to rise, which is welcome, but this is happening in the private sector, not in the public sector, where the Government continue their wage freezes. Living standards have stalled for five years because of the—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is droning on about all sorts of stuff. My understanding is that Third Readings are supposed to be about what is in the Bill, not just a general drone about the economy. Will you rule on that, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was listening closely, and allowing the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) some latitude, but the thrust of the point of order is correct. I should emphasise that this is not a portmanteau debate for the airing of a miscellany of grievances. This is a relatively narrow Third Reading about what is in the Bill, upon which I know the hon. Gentleman will now dilate for the remaining two and a half minutes.

Individual Electoral Registration

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. It may help if I clarify for those who are new to 60-minute debates, an innovation in this Parliament, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has said that we should give the two main Opposition parties five minutes each and the Minister 10 minutes at the end. It is therefore my intention to get to the Front Benchers no later than 5.10 pm.

Greece

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Accommodating remaining colleagues will require brevity, to be exemplified by Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is not the genesis of the problem that the EU allowed Greece to fiddle the figures in order to join the euro in the first place? Is not this blinkered pursuit of a political project of ever-closer union, rather than thinking through the economic consequences, the reason why we need to leave the European Union?

[Mr Osborne]

I know my hon. Friend has consistently held that view since he put it in his maiden speech, as I remember from listening to him many years ago. He identifies two challenges. One, fiddling the figures, we have addressed in this country by creating the Office for Budget Responsibility. When it comes to ever-closer union, that is precisely one of the issues that we are seeking to address in the renegotiation that we are conducting with the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the effect of the EU referendum, why did he vote to have one? We have heard the argument over the past couple of years that the fact of having a referendum would put a dampener on investment. In fact, we have attracted the lion’s share of investment in the European Union since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our policy, and he has now won public support for that policy. Of course we now want to resolve the uncertainty, but the way to do that is to achieve a good deal in the European Union and put that deal to the British people at the referendum, and we will have the referendum when we have the deal.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that even the most fanatical supporters of our membership of the European Union now accept that we could trade freely with the EU even if we left, will the Chancellor set out for us exactly what we get for our £19 billion a year membership fee?

[Mr Osborne]

I certainly commend my hon. Friend for his consistency. I remember that in his maiden speech he made the case for Britain leaving the European Union, and he will of course have his opportunity in the referendum. I would say that this is precisely the judgment that the British people and this Parliament have to make: what are the economic benefits of our European Union membership, such as the single market, and what would be the alternative? That will be part of the lively debate, and as I say, the Treasury will be fully involved in that debate.

Equitable Life

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

It is fair to say that the all-party group and EMAG have been on the backs of the Treasury Ministers responsible. The current Minister is in her place. Her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was very helpful in making sure that the scheme was speeded up and that people got the compensation due to them. Most importantly, he decided that he would not close the scheme, which could have been done under the legislation, until we had traced every one of the policyholders due for compensation.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I commend my hon. Friend on all his work on this issue over several years? Is not the crucial point in the motion that, with the public finances improving, the compensation already paid should not be considered the last word on the matter, and there should be more room to give proper compensation to people who need it? As I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), may I ask whether my hon. Friend understands the frustration of many people that the Government seem to have plenty of money to spray on things such as overseas aid and aid to India, which might be better spent on such compensation to people in this country?

[Bob Blackman]

The clear issue is that when the assessment was made of the amount of compensation due to policyholders—this point is crucial—it was decided that £4.3 billion should be paid in compensation. Clearly, £1.5 billion has been allocated, although it has not all been spent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, meaning that a compensation bill of £2.8 billion is still outstanding.

The Prime Minister quite rightly said at the Conservative party conference that as the economy recovers and we fix this country’s problems, tax rates will come down, but I would say that there is a still a bill to be paid to the people who saved for their retirement. Therefore, as the economy recovers and the public purse allows, we should compensate policyholders who have suffered a relative loss, as we committed to do at the last general election.

Carnforth Station

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Mr Morris, I allowed Mr Allen the courtesy of a couple of minutes to wind up the debate, so it is only right for me to offer you the same opportunity. There is no obligation, but if you want to take it, you can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The hon. Lady deliberately ignores the fact that many people faced marginal deduction rates of more than 100% under the previous Labour Government. It is precisely because we want every single person in this country to know that they will be better off in work than on benefits that we are introducing universal credit, and she should support it as strongly as I do.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that a 3p cut in fuel duty would generate 70,000 new jobs, stimulate GDP by 0.2% and help to reduce inflation. The Centre for Economics and Business Research says that a cut would be even more beneficial to the economy and would be self-financing. Do the Government accept that a cut in fuel duty would be self-financing and provide a boost to the economy?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that study, which I have discussed with the FairFuelUK campaign, although I was slightly discomforted when it said it thought that the only two politicians it had met who understood the issue were myself and Nigel Farage—that was probably a surprise to both of us. The Treasury has published its own analysis on fuel duty reductions, which shows the economic benefits that they can bring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With extreme brevity please, Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Earlier this week I visited GamCare at its headquarters in Clapham to see the wonderful work it does helping people with problem gambling. May I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to go themselves to listen to the counsellors, as I did, and to get their perspective on what we can best do to help people who sadly develop a gambling addiction?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. GamCare has been to see me, and I am happy to arrange a visit in the coming months.

Consumer Rights Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has just illustrated why I believe him to be the expert on this issue. I hope that he will contribute to the debate to explain why this concern about independent advice is so important. He is right about upholding the need for independent advice.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak in this debate, so let me say a little about net neutrality, and our amendment to amendment 19. I recognise that this is a new and evolving debate. Our discussions have ranged from the Victorian bill of sale to the contemporary net neutrality, both of which reflect this stress over conflicts of interest. For those Members of this House who have not yet had the chance to watch the viral videos about net neutrality, let me explain the concern. Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers and Governments should treat all data on the internet equally. They should not discriminate or charge by user, content, site, platform, or application. In layman’s terms that means that, whether we are looking at iPlayer, Sky on the Go or Netflix, there would be equal access to services. There would be no speed differential in accessing them.

In America, some broadband and internet providers have been exploring the idea of charging companies different rates for providing their services. That means that they could offer access to some websites at a faster rate than others, and therefore change the way in which consumers access them. The fear is that that would create a two-tier internet, because it will limit the number of sites that consumers can access with ease, and the number of companies that can access and operate services equally. In particular, if large companies were to use their financial muscle, or their internet provision, to restrict access to their competitors or to new entrants to the market, it could limit creativity and innovation in the provision of services. An internet without net neutrality moves huge market power to those who are the gatekeepers to our online services. It is little wonder that 100 companies, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have expressed concern about this issue. Indeed, “father of the internet” Tim Berners-Lee, who was rather unfairly described as a web developer recently, has argued that there is a real concern. He says:

“Unless we have an open, neutral internet we can rely on without worrying about what’s happening at the back door, we can’t have open government, good democracy, good healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture. It’s not naive to think we can have that, but it is naive to think we can just sit back and get it.”

We welcome the amendment that has been tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but we are concerned that the way in which it has been drafted may inadvertently imply that those sites that are providing pay-per-view services, such as Netflix, would be required also to provide access to some of their competitors, and I am sure that that was not what he intended. We have tabled a clarifying amendment to make it clear that we are talking about those services that provide access to the internet, rather than content.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister about what discussions she has had with her colleagues on the issue of net neutrality and about what action she is taking to ensure that consumers’ interests in the operation of net architecture are being upheld so that we do not have the concerns and challenges experienced by America. In particular, does she feel that existing protocols are strong enough to protect the interests of consumers and avoid competition issues between content providers, and has she done an assessment of the impact on consumers in the UK of a possible two-tier internet?

We have here some very different but interlinked issues around conflicts of interest, freedom of markets and consumer interest, and an effective piece of consumer rights legislation should provide consumers with the tools with which they can mount a challenge to any of them. We hope the Minister will accept our amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is about applying clarity in what is meant to the list of unfair contract terms that would give consumers the right to challenge issues in court. I therefore hope that the House will support them accordingly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I seek to restrict myself to speaking to amendment 19, which I tabled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for what she said and for her general support for the thrust of my amendment. In the spirit of that cross-party co-operation, I should also make it clear that I am perfectly happy to support her amendment to my amendment. It is not my intention to press my amendment to a Division, but if the hon. Lady decides to press hers, I will of course support her, because her amendment does exactly what I intended my own to do. I hope that it will not come to that, because I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government accept there is an issue, understand it and say that they will do something to resolve it. If that is the case, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, but we should wait to hear what the Minister has to say before we make any decisions along those lines.

Over the past 30 years, competition in the telecommunications industry has gone from a monopoly, through a duopoly to what is widely regarded now as one of the greatest success stories of privatisation, with the UK having one of the most vibrant and competitive markets in the world.

Additionally, the internet has become an essential part of our national infrastructure, transforming the way we work, play, gather information, communicate and trade. The internet provides the underlying infrastructure for many thousands of businesses and has slashed the cost of global communication.

In 2010, the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said that they were supportive of open internet, which I hope is still the case. The reality is that some major fixed-line internet service providers and mobile network operators have not participated with the major industry-level agreement towards meeting that objective.

The success of the internet is based on global interoperability—the ability for anyone to interact with any legal internet site anywhere in the world. That has created new opportunities, businesses and jobs, while also reducing costs for consumers. I hope that both sides of the House will agree that an open internet is vital for the future economic, social and political health of our nation. New services are coming online at an incredible rate, and it is important that this vibrant sector is able to develop as society becomes more mobile and people’s habits change.

It is vital that organisations controlling access to the internet do not abuse their position by discriminating against legal services, data, traffic and content for commercial or political purposes, and from a protectionist perspective. Although telecommunications providers should be allowed to use certain traffic management techniques to manage the integrity of their network, it should not be at the detriment of rival services purely for anti-competitive reasons.

Over the past year, I have been made aware of increasing evidence that certain internet service providers are undertaking various marketing and operational practices that are distorting a competitive market, creating consumer harm, hurting a number of specific internet industries and stifling innovation. The activity includes blocking internet services that compete with their own on purely commercial grounds; not communicating to customers clearly at the point of sale that they offer only restricted access to the internet; and refusing to participate in the Government-supported pan-industry code of practice, which seeks to uphold open internet principles and which has been signed by some of the largest players, including BT, O2, Sky and 3. I believe that that verges on mis-selling. The lack of transparency and clarity that has persisted in the market has allowed consumers to be deceived by the practice of selling internet access when in fact significant parts of the internet cannot be accessed under the terms and conditions of some price plans.

It seems like the voluntary ways of ensuring greater transparency in providing internet and telephony services have failed. There have been clear examples where certain operators, particularly in the mobile sectors, have misled their consumers by claiming to offer internet access, or UK internet, when some legal internet services are not available within the package that has been provided. In other cases, the small print—when I say small print I mean it, as one would need binoculars to see some of the terms and conditions—outlines extra costs that the consumer would face if they dared to use the internet they have paid for to access services that compete with their provider’s own.

The fact that any operator is able to offer a product advertised with “internet access” and only have to clarify this policy in the small print is unacceptable. Unknowing customers who use popular services such as Skype, WhatsApps or Viber could see their service suspended but continue to be held responsible for paying their bills. That lack of transparency and clarity on these issues is totally unfair to these unknowing customers, and it continues, as consumers are in many cases unable to leverage competitive pressure because it is difficult to understand whether or not certain traffic types are allowed, blocked or just charged additionally. Ofcom’s consumer guide on internet traffic management from 2013 outlined the fact that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices undertaken by internet service providers and whether such practices would affect specific internet services that they used. How can consumers make an effective and informed choice if they are not fully aware of the practices of their internet service provider or mobile provider, and the potential of those practices to inhibit certain services?

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The record will show that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I do not agree on many issues, but on this one I agree with him completely and utterly. He and I are supporters of the Internet Telephony Service Providers Association, which has had many concerns about abuses in this area. Does he agree that we are talking not just about transparency, but about setting a fundamental rule that such bias simply cannot be allowed? Does he agree that we should support net neutrality throughout and not simply tell people when it is being broken?

[Philip Davies]

It is a red-letter day for me when the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Walthamstow agree with me. I could not have envisaged such cross-party support, and if the Minister is able to withstand that I will be disappointed. We have a political consensus, of which I am usually very suspicious. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the principle of net neutrality is the most important point. It is not simply a question of transparency; transparency is the minimum that people can expect. With my amendment, I am trying to ensure that we have net neutrality and truly open access to the internet, and to put an end to protectionist and restrictive practices that are against consumers’ interests.

I am referring to services including voice over IP, which is similar to Skype. Voice over IP allows consumers significantly to reduce their phone bills by using voice over the internet, instead of their mobile provider’s phone minutes and messaging services that use mobile data rather than text. It is especially important for consumers that that market works efficiently given Ofcom’s research finding that a quarter of the UK’s poorest households are mobile-only and are wholly beholden to mobile operators’ tariffs to enable them to access crucial services.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a consumer signs a mobile phone contract that offers internet access, he or she should be entitled to use any legal internet service that they deem fit, not just the parts of the internet that suit their mobile phone company. I hope that hon. Members understand that customers who buy a mobile phone package rarely have the time or inclination to read through all the minutiae in the small print, even if they have the foresight to imagine all the services that they might want to use over the two-year life of their contract. Surely, customers have the right to expect that an internet service will do what it says on the tin. Consumers should, therefore, be able to rely on statutory consumer protection regulations to protect them from such abusive practices.

Given the rapid evolution of the internet, I do not think that it would be wise for Parliament to attempt to define everything that the internet is and does for the future, but I am convinced that the current unfettered ability of telecommunications providers, whether they be internet service providers or mobile operators, to decide what customers can and cannot access is harmful to consumers and to the wider economy. As I have outlined, those practices not only create significant consumer harm but stifle competition—for example, in the market for non-geographic and international calls—which leads to exorbitant prices and discourages new entrants to the market.

There is also concern surrounding future innovation and economic growth. If innovators have no certainty that networks will carry their services, particularly if they rival products offered by the networks, companies will be less likely to invest in new services because the return on investment will be unpredictable. How can a provider who wants to build a mobile app have any certainty that the mobile network operator will not block his rival service and/or make it extremely opaque at the point of sale whether consumers can actually access those services? Such things should be of great concern to us, because they will stifle growth in a sector that is incredibly important to the future prosperity of the country.

When I asked representatives from Ofcom about the matter during a Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport hearing last summer, there was an acceptance that some undesirable blocking was being undertaken by certain mobile operators around specific internet services, and that more needed to be done to ensure that telecommunications providers were transparent and up front with their customers. Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, outlined the industry voluntary code on the transparency of information given to consumers about traffic management practices. I have grave concerns about whether the information that providers are supplying to their customers is helping in any way, shape or form. Ofcom’s research in September 2013 demonstrated that consumers were not aware about traffic management practices when making their purchasing decisions.

Together with the internet code around transparency, the industry has created a voluntary self-regulatory code on maintaining the open internet. I believe that the code is a good one, and it will be an effective tool for protecting consumers and businesses. The significant problem is that some major providers are yet to sign up, nearly two years after the launch of the initiative. Given that there is no obligation on UK telecommunication providers in that area, those providers that are transparent and allow access to services could easily change their minds tomorrow and not be subject to any action.

Therefore, I think it is time that the House recognised that unless more action is taken, certain industry players will continue to use clever marketing tactics and rely on the lack of consumer understanding to mislead their customers, distort the market and damage new and innovative internet services that threaten their own products. That is why I have proposed amendment 19, which would protect consumers from the practices that I have described. The amendment would ensure that anyone selling internet access, or using any similar term, will not be able to rely on any unreasonable or unusual definition of that term to restrict their customers’ access to legal parts of the internet.

I have made it clear, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for doing the same, that I do not seek in any way to limit the ability of internet service providers to block access to sites for the purposes of child protection. Nor would my amendment prevent internet service providers from offering age-related content blocks where customers request them. I certainly would not want to do anything to change that. That is why I would be happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendment if she seeks to divide the House.

Amendment 19 would give customers confidence that when they sign a two-year contract that offers internet access, they will get full internet access and will not be left with a contract that they cannot get out of that does not do what they thought it would when they signed up to it. It is essential to preserve and protect consumer access to the legal internet. We cannot allow internet service providers to decide for themselves, based on their own commercial interests, what customers can and cannot access while still marketing their service as internet access.

The protection offered by amendment 19 would benefit all consumers, but it would also spur innovation, growth and job creation in a sector that is vital for the future prosperity of the country. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to support my amendment or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I hope that we will not have to press the matter to a Division, because I hope that the Minister will understand the strength of the case that we have made and reaffirm that the Government will deliver on open internet access. If she is not prepared to do that, I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will press her amendment to a vote, which I would support.

[Helen Goodman]

I would like to congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your recent damehood. I know that a knighthood is a real thing, but I am not sure whether a damehood is a thing. However, it is a very well deserved recognition of your excellent service to the House over many years, and I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted to hear the news.

This is a marvellous occasion for another reason. It is wonderful to be in the Chamber in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). That is a fantastic coalition, and it shows what a beacon of free speech the House of Commons is, because that principle has motivated everybody to get involved in the debate. I believe that the principle of net neutrality is the principle of free speech in the modern world. My hon. Friend set out a clear and cogent case for amendment (a) to amendment 19, and the hon. Member for Shipley proposed amendment 19 comprehensively. I shadow the Minister with responsibility for communications and creative industries, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and I hope that the Minister at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has had some conversations with him since, in many ways, this issue falls into his bailiwick.

Let me elaborate a tiny bit on what my hon. Friend said. Net neutrality is absolutely central to the operation of the internet. The principle that there should be no discrimination between services when providing internet access is fundamental to an open net. At the moment in this country we have no legislation, but we have a voluntary industry code of practice for internet and mobile service providers. However, the problem is that as it is voluntary the companies do not have to abide by it. European Commissioner Neelie Kroes has been working on proposals for net neutrality across the European Union as part of the single telecoms package. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Shipley did not highlight that excellent proposal from the European Union, but we do not need to wait for the European Union to have this debate or to ask the Government what they are doing, because the issue is a central one.

The possibility of amending the Bill was brought to my attention by ITSPA, the Internet Telephony Services Providers Association, which is concerned that some internet providers have an interest in refusing to carry voice-over IP services because they have a competing product. Having discussed the question with Ofcom, I am not clear whether that is happening. If it is, it should not be, and if it is not, there is a risk that it might happen, and we in this House need to address that.

The point made by the hon. Gentleman about the lack of transparency and consumer awareness is extremely concerning. There is a problem when people buy a piece of kit or take out a contract with one ISP or mobile phone provider if, in doing so, they restrict their access to some material and if there is no description or warning of that. That is clearly a limitation of their access to information on a free net.

Ofcom is working to improve the effectiveness of the code of practice on traffic management transparency. My view is that transparency is not enough and that we need rules of the game that go beyond it. I am not convinced that even if the information was on a strapline across the packaging when people bought a piece of kit or signed a mobile contract they would fully realise what it meant. This is too important to leave simply to transparency, which is why I have put my name to amendment 19 and why I support these changes.

The Minister needs to tell the House what the Government are doing proactively to preserve net neutrality. It is not enough to take a reactive stance, as the Government are on many communications issues. The Communications Act 2003 is a very good Act, but it is getting out of date and this is one example of that. That is why we were particularly concerned to have this debate in the House today so that we could find out what Ministers are doing.

It is essential that we preserve free speech on the internet and net neutrality is part of that. There is a small exception in amendment 19 to enable us to continue with child protection—again, we have cross-party agreement on the importance of child protection—but we are all agreed that we want net neutrality, with that single exception, to be the modern form of free speech.

Consumer Rights Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

The new clauses and amendments would deal with that. I understand that the tickets for the rugby world cup are not yet formally on sale. The fact that they are already being marketed on secondary sites at such prices demonstrates the scale of the problem that we need to tackle.

I pay tribute to the tremendous and tireless work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who will speak about her new clauses later. I also pay tribute to what has been done by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has also tabled a new clause on this subject, shares the widespread concern that is felt.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will, but only briefly, because I am conscious of the time, and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a number of new clauses and amendments himself.

[Philip Davies]

Given what the hon. Lady said about not wanting to encourage the secondary ticket market, may I take it as read that she will support my new clause 12, which would guarantee people a refund from the organiser if they are not able to go to the event? If they cannot go and they cannot get a refund, they will not have much choice other than to sell the ticket on.

[Stella Creasy]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause responds to a slightly different challenge, and presents a practical challenge in relation to how it could be applied, but let me make one thing very clear, in case he did not hear me say it the first time. We are not suggesting that there should not be a market for the selling on of tickets; we are saying that what the ticket touts are doing is distorting the market for consumers. That is separate from the issue of whether people can obtain a refund within 24 hours. Let me caution the hon. Gentleman that some aspects of his proposal may not work in a practical sense, whereas we are presenting practical proposals.

New clause 8, in particular, has learnt the lessons of the Olympic and paralympic games. Tickets for those games were given particular protection to enable people to be confident that they could obtain them. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 levied fines of up to £5,000 for the reselling of tickets at a profit. The Home Secretary increased that to £20,000, citing the threat from serious and organised criminal groups. We know that ticket touting is being used to support a range of criminal activities. New clause 8 relates to events of national significance. Let us make sure that rugby fans can go to the world cup: it surely cannot be all that difficult to legislate for that.

New clause 16 seeks to get to the root of the problem, which is that people do not necessarily know what they are being sold. A unique identifier is a simple way in which to ensure that when someone buys a ticket, it is a ticket for a particular gig, show or match. The venues themselves will have already given out identifying information, whether it is a seat number or a stall number. We are suggesting that they should be required to provide that information at the point of sale, so that people can be confident about what they are buying. That will enable the event organisers to identify those in, for instance, rugby clubs who are already selling on tickets that they have been given and are misusing their relationship to give out the information.

We think that that accords very well with what the Minister said in Committee about the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which she believed would address the issues related to selling. She said that they

“set out…the information that a trader should provide to a consumer for all distance sales—which would include tickets”.

In particular, she said that they gave details of

“the main characteristics of the goods”.––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2014; c. 183.]

We believe that new clause 16 would simply put that into practice in the context of the secondary ticketing market, providing clarity for all who are concerned about what they are buying. It accords with consumer regulation, and we hope that the Government will support it, even if they fear that some of the other new clauses relating to ticket touting would be difficult to implement. We certainly hope that they will listen to the clarion call from new clause 8. Surely everyone, in the House and outside, agrees that it cannot be right for us not to be confident that it is the fans who are able to obtain tickets to attend events of sporting significance, whether they obtain them online or offline.

I know that other Members want to talk about ticket touting, and I shall therefore move on to the subject of letting agents’ fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I simply do not accept the picture the hon. Gentleman is painting. Scotland has banned fees on tenants, and the experience there has been an increase in the number of letting agents and no effect on the rents people are paying. The evidence shows that, as with the payday lenders, when we give tenants the muscle to remove this fee, the market shapes up. We have not seen an increase in the fees that tenants are facing; nor have we seen an exit from the market. Some of the fears the hon. Gentleman might have, which I understand, are not well founded, because a lot of the fees tenants are being asked to pay are not indicative of a service being provided; they are indicative of a profit-making machine. We are trying to deal with the detriment caused by the ability of agents to charge fees to two parties at the same time. By making this a fee for the landlord, it is clear whose interest the agent is acting in.

As I say, we have dealt with the particular issue here, because we have listened to the landlords and letting agents who have expressed concerns about tenants who may not be what they seem. In that instance, there would be a case for being able to charge a fee to the tenant which would be refunded, but the alternative of letting this practice continue and seeing the kind of fees that we are seeing, and therefore the problems that are being caused, is also unsustainable. I hope that Government Members, particularly those who have now recognised there is a problem with the fees in themselves, will go that stage further and recognise that there is a problem with this form of double-charging, support our proposals and learn from the experience in Scotland on this issue.

As I am conscious of the time, I shall move on; I appreciate that there are a number of Members who wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Hampshire, who has made many useful contributions this afternoon, will get to speak in the following debate.

I briefly want to speak to amendment 6. It may come as a surprise to some to see the Government resisting the work of the Federation of Small Businesses, which is trying to help small businesses that are struggling with their consumer contracts. Members in this House may have first-hand experience of that, as we are, after all, small businesses and will have dealt with business-to-business contracts, and many may not realise that they have different levels of consumer protection as a result.

The FSB has recently published a report on small businesses which points out that it makes much more sense to give micro-businesses the same consumer protection as private individuals. After all, it is unreasonable to expect a micro-business to have the same level of legal qualification and expertise to deal with a contract as that of a larger body, and that is what amendment 6 addresses. I note that the FSB has given its support to this amendment. I was surprised when the Minister said earlier that the FSB did not support giving consumer rights to businesses. That has not been the briefing that we have had from it; indeed, it supports this amendment. Will the Minister set out when she expects to give small businesses the kind of consumer protection they need, because it will be one fewer worry for them?

I wish now to touch on some of the other new clauses. New clause 14 deals with Ofcom and switching. We certainly think this is a good idea, and we wish to see the Government following it through. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was not here earlier when we were debating new clause 3 and new schedule 1 and making it easier for consumers to be able to switch. We recognise that there are problems. It is unusual for the UK, by comparison with other nations, to have this issue, and it will be interesting to know whether the Minister is considering it.

I look forward to the hon. Member for Shipley making his case for new clause 13. I certainly agree that transparency is important. The laws governing animal welfare at slaughter, at both EU and UK level, require animals to be stunned before slaughter, but they make an exemption to that requirement for religious slaughter, which is carried out by members of the Jewish and Muslim communities.

We are concerned about whether this amendment has a significant effect on animal welfare and implications beyond that. In particular, we must ensure that our laws strike the right balance between concern for animal welfare, which many of us have, transparency for consumers and respect for the traditions of different businesses and different communities. We also recognise that a lot of work has already been done on this matter in the European Union, and it would be sensible to learn some of the lessons on the wider issues such as how goods and foods are labelled. It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that—perhaps not on Europe but on the research that is being done.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a law that caused confusion in this area rather than clarity. He focuses on halal and kosher food, but the Opposition believe that respect implies an active attitude towards others rather than a passive attitude, and certainly our position is to seek proper engagement with all faith groups before we move forward on such a measure.

Let me turn now to new clause 15, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We supported it in Committee and would support it again. It is an incredibly important amendment and I urge Members to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. We do not believe it is acceptable to leave it to consumers to know whether they have a death trap in their house.

Finally, I want to say a bit about Government amendments 14 to 20 and the very welcome U-turn that seems to have been made. In Committee, we were concerned that consumers could be left waiting many months for a refund, but the Minister suggested that the Government believed there were potential disadvantages of introducing a time limit that outweighed the benefits that such a change could bring. We suggested 30 days in which to get a refund, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have gone one stage further and said that people should get their money back in 14 days. That gives me great hope that while the Minister may be saying “computer says no” at the moment to some of the things that we have been talking about today and in Committee, we will see further concessions in due course. We shall welcome them accordingly.

[Philip Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I was, surprisingly, rather encouraged by her response to my amendments. It could be a red-letter day for me, getting support across the House for some of my amendments.

I want to focus mainly on new clause 13, which is about the labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will seek to press it to a vote, should the opportunity arise. It is an issue of great importance to the public, and we have heard an awful lot of commentary on it in the media and among many of our constituents in recent weeks. They would appreciate seeing where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

When the hon. Gentleman says that the issue is of great importance to the country, he means the Daily Mail and The Sun.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady needs to get out more, to be perfectly honest. She would find that there is widespread concern about the issue. She can vote accordingly and should not have anything to fear from a debate or a vote. I do not see why she should seek to object to either thing—that is what we are supposed to be here in Parliament to do, after all.

As you know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber, but I am well aware of the time limitations and that other Members want to speak. I have given way once, but I will try to resist the temptation to give way many times because I want to hear what others have to say, too, and there is a lot to get through.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am sorry to test my hon. Friend’s resolve so early in his speech, but this is an important point. On reflection, does he not agree that his new clause on halal meat—[Interruption]—and kosher could have been better drafted? If we are to have labelling, is it not important that the labelling specifies whether the meat was pre-stunned halal or non-pre-stunned?

[Philip Davies]

I have resolve, but I can seldom resist giving way to my right hon. Friend. Animal welfare is a big issue for lots of people, but it is not the only one. Many other faith groups are concerned about the blessing given to the meat before sale, and his proposal would not address their particular concerns. My new clause has been drafted with all such people in mind, because the issue is bigger than one only of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important element, but not the only element. I will come on to that later.

I want to start, however, with new clause 12, which relates to ticketing. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that my new clause had nothing to do with her new clauses, but nothing could be further from the truth—it very much has. We know what her long-term agenda is, because she let it slip in an intervention: ultimately, she wants to see the end of ticket touting and the secondary sale of tickets. I think that that would be a massive retrograde step. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, looked into the matter in the previous Parliament and found that such activities were a legitimate area of business. The Office of Fair Trading, as well as the Committee, found that it works in the consumer’s best interest.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I will stick to my resolve. The hon. Lady and I have locked horns on the issue over years. If anyone wants to look at our previous debates, they can go back to Hansard and see them all rehearsed there. I am sure that she will get the opportunity to have her say in a bit.

Fifty per cent. of tickets on viagogo are sold at a loss, so the idea that all people touting tickets are selling them at huge profits is simply not true; most are sold at a loss. The principle is this: if I buy a ticket, as far as I am concerned it belongs to me. I should be able to do with that ticket what I choose to do, including selling it on to someone else, as I can with any other commodity. Other products have limited editions, which are popular, such as designer handbags or Buzz Lightyear toys from years back, and people go in, buy the lot for a small amount and sell them on at an inflated price on eBay a few hours later. If the Labour party wants to ban that happening with tickets, presumably it will say that that kind of behaviour should be banned as well. That is complete nonsense.

Event organisers do not lose out at all, because all the tickets are sold at the price that they wanted to get for them—all the income that they wanted is delivered. The idea that real fans will be deprived of going to an event is complete nonsense. If someone is prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are a real fan. Not many people are prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket for something that they do not really care about going to. It actually guarantees that real fans go.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

If I have a ticket to the Lords test match, for example, or to the rugby world cup final, and I go into my local pub and someone says to me, “It is my lifetime ambition to go there, I would give £4,000 for a ticket,” what is wrong with my saying that I will give up my ticket and they can go instead? Everybody is happy, nobody has lost out, but Labour want to interfere with people’s aspirations. Why should that be banned? If someone does not want to pay the higher price, they should not pay it. Nobody is forced to pay the inflated prices if they do not want to.

If the secondary sale of tickets bothers event promoters so much, why do they not do something practical to stop it? Why sell all the tickets in one go, for example? Why not hold them back? Why put them all on sale so that they are sold within 43 seconds, meaning that they can be resold at inflated prices? If promoters are so bothered, why not sell tickets bit by bit, week by week, month by month so that there are still tickets available the week before the event? That would remove the secondary ticketing market, but they choose not to do it. That can only lead me to presume that the event organisers are shedding crocodile tears, as they are happy to get all the money from the tickets being snapped up.

An ICM poll showed that 83% agreed with the premise:

“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it to just as I can any other private property.”

[Mr Marsden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way.

This situation is very similar to the one I experienced when I was at Asda and we broke the net book agreement. Publishers had the right to set the price of books and nobody could undercut it, but Asda went to court and broke that agreement so now books can be sold at any price the retailer wants. It seems to me that Labour wants to go back to a time when publishers of books could set the price for books and ticket providers could set the price for tickets and nobody could do anything about it.

New clause 12, which guarantees that an event organiser must give somebody a refund up to 24 hours before an event, is essential if the Opposition want to get their way. If they want to ban somebody from selling on a ticket for the rugby world cup final, the only option for somebody who has bought a ticket and cannot go would be a refund. On too many occasions, event organisers will not allow refunds for events so what on earth is the customer supposed to do in such circumstances? The Opposition will not support insisting that they get a refund and they want to ban them from selling the ticket on, so somebody will be left with a ticket that they can do absolutely nothing with. How on earth can that be in the best interest of the consumer?

On the subject of the rugby world cup final, if people from New Zealand buy a lot of tickets for the final in the expectation that their team will get there only for it to be knocked out in the semi-final, we need a mechanism by which those fans can sell on their tickets to the fans of the team that will be in the final instead. It seems that the Opposition have not even thought about that prospect. The secondary market in tickets is an efficient way of getting tickets from one group of people to another so that the real fans can go. If Labour had its way, the real fans would not be able to go because they would be blocked from using any mechanism to get there.

I want to concentrate on new clause 13, which says:

“All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.”

For the purposes of the new clause, I have defined a food outlet as

“anywhere where food is served to the public.”

I have done that because I specifically wanted to include places such as schools and hospitals, as I think many parents and patients are concerned about food that they do not know the provenance or background of, and that information is important to them.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

If that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention, his clause is far too simplistic. Does he not agree that in the interests of fairness and consumer transparency consumers have the right to know about the origins of non-religiously slaughtered meat, whether that meat has been stunned or not, if it has been stunned what method was used and the method of non-religious slaughter? That is a lot of information, but observant Muslims or Jews would like that information as well as people who object.

[Philip Davies]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. She seems to be making the point that we need more labelling, not less. If she is saying that my new clause is a step, but it does not go as far as she would like it to go, I am happy to take that criticism on the chin.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I support further labelling, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to look at religious slaughter in isolation from other forms of slaughter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said? Labelling could give information about how the animals lived—their housing, food and drug consumption. Why is he picking on religious communities in his new clause?

[Philip Davies]

Let me make something clear. I am not picking on anyone. I do not want to ban anything. People want to buy religiously slaughtered meat, although that may not be my choice. It is Labour Members who want to ban everything that they do not happen to like. That is not my style. I happen to believe in freedom of choice, and I want people who want to buy religiously slaughtered meat to be free to make that choice. Equally, people who specifically do not want to buy that meat should be free to make that choice. So this is not about picking on anyone. It is not about trying to ban anybody from doing anything.

I do not really see who loses out from the new clause. It is to the advantage of those people who want to buy halal and kosher meat and to the advantage of those who specifically do not that meat is properly labelled. So I do not see who the victim of my new clause is. Everyone is a winner. It is to everybody’s advantage that meat is properly labelled and above board so that everyone knows that what they are buying is what they want to buy. That is the only intention behind my new clause; there is no other objective. I am not seeking to ban anything or stop anybody from doing anything they want to do. I merely seek to allow people to make an informed choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asks why. The simple reason is that there is a huge demand for labelling out in the country—there certainly is in my constituency. That is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this very issue two years ago. It was defeated by three votes, largely by the politically correct brigade on the Opposition Benches. It was a big issue in my constituency then. I contend that it is an even bigger issue today. It has not mushroomed out of nowhere. There is widespread customer demand that proper information be given so that people can make an informed choice.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I have said that I must make some headway.

British legislation requires the stunning of animals before slaughter, with the religious exemptions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) made clear. Religious traditions sometimes require people to slaughter without stunning. The exemption dates back to the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1928 and the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which applies to England and Wales. The EU also granted derogations from stunning regulations for religious communities.

In recent years, animal groups, most notably the Farm Animal Welfare Council, have advocated labelling of some meat to decrease the amount purchased, thereby reducing the amount of unstunned meat, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) said.

Neither the British Parliament nor the European Parliament has passed a law that requires labelling of unstunned meat, but there has been much debate about it in the past. My new clause would make it compulsory for halal and kosher meat to be labelled because, as a strong believer in freedom of choice, I think that one of the fundamental rights of the consumer is to know what they are purchasing.

I spent 12 years working for Asda before I entered the House. Some of the supermarkets are reluctant to do anything about this because it is inconvenient for them to go through the food chain to provide the labelling. When I was at Asda, I was taught that we were in business to do what was best for the customer—to do what the customer wanted, not what was for our convenience. I am rather worried that that attitude is slipping in some of our supermarket chains. It is not about what is most convenient for them; I do not care about that. They should be delivering what their customers want, and there is no doubt that this is what customers want to see.

Consumers cannot satisfy their preferences at present because not all meat products are labelled. Therefore, legislation requiring labelling is essential for consumers to exercise their right to make an informed decision.

[Mike Weatherley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way.

I would much prefer it if legislation was not required. I am not the type of person who wants to rush to legislation, but in the two years since my ten-minute rule Bill was introduced absolutely nothing has happened. There have been plenty of opportunities for the retailers to sort this out for themselves, and they have failed spectacularly to do anything about it.

This is important. According to the EU DIALREL project, the exemption from religious slaughter in schedule 12 to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 clearly states that the exemption applies to people of that religion—not to everybody. That implies that halal and kosher meat should be consumed by those of Muslim and Jewish faiths respectively, because that type of slaughter is specified for their religious needs. That is clearly not the case, because Muslims make up a small proportion of the UK population, yet the Halal Food Authority estimated two years ago that halal meat makes up 25% of the meat market. I suspect that the figure is even higher. Similarly, approximately 70% of kosher meat that is sold is not consumed by the Jewish community.

We are going far beyond the exemption that was designed for those people with their particular religious beliefs. There have been cases of schools, hospitals, pubs, sports arenas, cafés, markets and hotels serving halal meat to customers without their knowledge. I am led to believe that it even happened in the House of Commons canteens in 2010. To my dismay as a former retailer, it has certainly happened in some of the larger supermarket chains, and in some of the largest food outlets such as Pizza Hut, Domino’s and KFC. It has also happened in schools. In 2010, Harrow council faced a massive protest after announcing a plan to serve halal-only menus in the borough’s state primary schools, and parents complained that it was forced on them against their will.

Some 98% of consumers in the 2004 Co-op survey of consumer attitudes to the ethics of the food industry stated that they supported the humane treatment of animals. Considering that some halal and kosher meats are slaughtered without pre-stunning, many such consumers would not buy the meat if they were aware of what it was. Interestingly, Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, stated in September 2010:

“As Muslims have a choice of eating halal meat, non-Muslims should also have the choice of not eating it. Customers should know it is halal meat.”

An amendment to induce the compulsory labelling of unstunned halal and kosher meat and products would give consumers more freedom of choice, increase market efficiency, as retailers are enabled to respond to customer demand, and help to protect animal welfare rights.

It is not just me who thinks that. The Sikh Council UK has put out a statement agreeing with that. It believes that everyone has the right to purchase and consume food in accordance with their religious beliefs. Hindus have said that they, too, agree with my new clause, and believe the same thing. Many of these groups do not focus on animal welfare but specifically object to the religious blessing that goes with the practice. I will conclude with this particular point about halal and kosher meat. I do not know if hon. Members read the article by Taj Hargey, the director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, who said that the practice is

“covert religious extremism and creeping Islamic fundamentalism making its way into Britain by the back door. It is completely wrong that the food sensitivities of Britain’s Muslims—who amount to just 4.8% of the population—should take precedence over the other 95%. Halal meat should never be forced on customers without their knowing, surreptitiously and using clandestine methods. It’s unfair to everyone, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.”

He also said that the idea that Muslims cannot eat non-halal meat is completely wrong, and

“has no theological basis in the Koran, the supreme text of Islam.”

He said:

“I’m a dedicated Muslim, a devout religionist, an imam and intellectual scholar of Islam, but I eat whatever food is placed before me, with the obvious exception of pork. If you’re kind enough to invite me to your home, I would eat whatever meat you chose to serve”.

He concluded:

“It is high time the white, liberal, Guardian-reading classes stopped behaving like apologists and woke up. There is a fundamentalist Trojan horse in our midst, and we must take corrective action.”

Many people in this country are demanding that this House take the action that they would like to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on a thorough interpretation of the new clauses.

Music, theatre, comedy and sport are a vital part of British society and the British economy, and our creative industries are worth more than £36 billion a year. They generate £70,000 every minute for the UK economy, and employ 1.5 million people in the UK. That is why it is vital to have a healthy and transparent ticket market, yet with increasing frequency, secondary ticketing resellers are causing dramatically inflated prices for the fans, and taking away revenue from performers. That has to stop.

I have consistently been a champion of the free market and I do not have a problem with artists or sports teams charging whatever they wish for their services. That is their prerogative, and they should be allowed to set the prices of their tickets or, if they choose, to sell them through secondary ticketing or auction websites. However, as the online marketplace has become quicker and easier to use, a large number of unsavoury and illegal practices have sprung up surrounding ticket reselling websites. That is why I, along with colleagues from both sides of the House, founded the all-party group on ticket abuse. We conducted a review and the results were published recently, as we have heard, with new clauses recommended as a result.

One key aspect of an honest and transparent ticket purchasing process is the intention of the buyer at the point of purchase. No one would begrudge a Rolling Stones fan who has become ill the day before the show the opportunity to sell their ticket to someone else. However, an increasing number of people are buying tickets with absolutely no intention of going to the event. Instead, those career touts buy tickets solely with the intention of denying them to real fans, whom they can squeeze for profit by reselling their tickets to a “sold out” event.

That situation is not limited to fans who simply waited too long to buy tickets. With internet ticket selling becoming more streamlined, touts are able to use sophisticated computer systems to buy large volumes of tickets automatically mere seconds or minutes after they go online. That can often mean that it is practically impossible for genuine fans to get access to the event, forcing them to rely on an artificially created secondary market, and depriving content creators of revenue for their event. That is unacceptable.

On this issue I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who raised some points earlier, because we would all suffer, including the artists. Just because an artist has received the full value for a concert that is sold out does not mean that they—or another artist—would not suffer elsewhere. For example, suppose someone has a budget of £500 a year for going to venues. They might think, “I’ll go to 10 concerts in that year and buy some merchandising and other products while I am there”, but if they then spend £200, £300 or even £500 on one concert, they will not go to the other nine. No wonder there is underselling in other concerts because people do not necessarily have the money, and we all lose out as a result.

[Philip Davies]

indicated dissent.

[Mike Weatherley]

My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but he must understand that my point is right. I would, of course, prefer no legislation on the subject and to rely on industry-led solutions, as we heard earlier. A potential solution to touting, which has been adopted by some venues already, is to use credit card verification. However, touts often generate such large profits from many events that that method is ineffective. There are also additional problems of crowd control and so on. If hon. Members who disagree with that point had bothered to come to the all-party group when we took evidence, they would have heard from promoters who have tried those other methods that such things do not work, and they would not try them again for all sorts of reasons.

The Metropolitan police published a comprehensive report on fraudulent ticketing and the dangers it posed to the Olympics; it specifically cites ticket fraud, touting and ticket reselling websites as areas of concern. Among several issues, the Met noted that websites with servers based overseas were causing serious problems by advertising fraudulent tickets, and making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to track the offenders or shut down illegal sites. The report stressed—as do I—the need for an open and transparent system for ticket reselling, with clear and appropriate regulations.

Transparency is key to protecting not just content creators but ticket buyers from dubious and misleading transactions. Again, I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley because I never thought there would be a connection between halal meat and secondary ticketing. I was keen to intervene on him but he would not allow me to. All through his speech, however, he made the point that clear labelling and the consumer being aware of what they were buying was fundamental. He said—I wrote it down—that it is a fundamental right that consumers know what they are buying. That is exactly what the new clauses are saying, no more and no less. For instance, it is common in the entertainment industries for all or part of the fee for professionals involved in an event to be paid in tickets. The venue might be paid in tickets to a corporate box and a promoter or manager may be given some as part of their fee. That is done with the tacit understanding that recipients of such tickets will subsequently be able to sell them for significantly more than their face value. It is, of course, the prerogative of the content creators if they wish to do this, but it should be done transparently.

Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, have suggested that trying to regulate ticket touting is an interference in the natural free market. However to say this is to misunderstand—and be wrong about—one of the key principles of the free market, which is the ability for the market to respond to demand by increasing supply. In the case of sports matches or live music, there is no way to increase the supply. There are only so many games in the season and bands can only play so many dates. That is why it is so important for the content creators to be in control of how their tickets are sold. It does not in any way infringe their right to charge however much they want for the tickets, as long as it is part of a transparent and well regulated system that works in the best interests of fans and performers.

New clauses 18 to 21 are intended to assist that transparency. None of the clauses would restrict the secondary markets, but they would become more accountable. In particular, people who had been sold an invalid ticket would be compensated more than just the ticket price to reflect the true cost of attending. New clause 20 would restrict the cost to twice the price paid for the ticket, which might not be the full cost to those attending, but would at least give some incentive to those selling to get the ticket price right, without being an open cheque book.

We have come a long way since I first supported the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) a few years ago. Then, there was little support for measures to protect consumers from the worst aspects of ticket touting. Now, I am pleased to say that, with increased knowledge and understanding, there is increased agreement on both sides of the House that something needs to be done. The small measures suggested in new clauses 18 to 21 are a step in the right direction, and I trust that the Minister will address at least some of the issues when she responds later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Willott]

We have had a varied and wide-ranging debate this afternoon, so I shall do my best to cover as many of the issues that Members have raised as I can. First, however, I want to explain the Government amendments, which are designed to protect consumers from a delay in receiving a refund. We discussed the issue in Committee and although delay might arise only in a minority of cases, the Government are persuaded that the potential detriment means that this is a sensible change to make. We are ensuring that any refund must be made without undue delay and always within 14 days of the trader agreeing that the consumer is entitled to a refund. Since we discussed that in Committee my Department has been consulting business organisations and consumer groups to identify the best way to make the change without disadvantaging either consumers or businesses. I am glad that the Opposition support the change.

The Government agree that consumers should be protected from fraudulent, counterfeit and misleading ticket sales. I think that everybody in the House would agree with that. However, we also need to allow the market to operate for the benefit of consumers who would miss out on events without it. We have made new regulations that will come into force this year to empower and inform consumers. From June, traders will have to ensure that consumers have all the information they need before they buy. We published detailed guidance when the regulations were made in December 2013, but since then the Trading Standards Institute has been working on additional guidance. We have today updated our guidance on those regulations to make it clear what that means for ticket sales. That went live on our website this morning. It includes clarification that if the ticket is for a specific seat that information must be given, that the total cost, including delivery costs and other charges, must be given and that, depending on the circumstances, the face value may also need to be given.

In addition, from October of this year we are making it easier for consumers who have been misled by a trader to take their own action to get their money back and, if appropriate, to get damages as well. Armed with that information and access to redress, consumers will be empowered to make use of the market for their benefit and hopefully not fall victim to fraudulent, counterfeit or misleading ticket sales. There are also rules in place to protect consumers, and when a marketplace is aware of illegitimate activity on its site it might be in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

As for new clause 12, when there are concerns about the secondary ticketing market the first port of call should be for the industry to source a solution. Some of the larger event organisers, as has already been mentioned, already have refund procedures in place and we welcome that. However others, including smaller players, have chosen not to, for very good commercial reasons in many cases.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) highlighted the importance of industry-led action, and we agree with that. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and a number of other Members mentioned the rugby world cup in 2015, and that is a great example of industry-led action. The organisers’ 10-point plan lists many of the actions suggested by the hon. Member for Shipley, including the release of tickets in batches and the late issue of tickets.

All that is being industry-led. I hope that what I have said has reassured members of the all-party group that we share the concerns that they have highlighted and that we have looked carefully at the best way to take on board the group’s recommendations to try to protect consumers. I hope that they are reassured by what I have explained about the information on the website and in the guidance.

On halal meat—a completely different subject—we want people to have the information that they need to make informed choices about the food that they buy. Many retailers or restaurants and fast food outlets already voluntarily provide information on whether meat is halal or kosher. As we have seen from the debate today, this is a complex and sensitive area. There is no single clear definition of halal meat. The majority of halal meat produced in this country comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter, whereas kosher meat all comes from unstunned animals. That is just part of what consumers want to know, as we have heard in the debate today. We already have powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to make domestic regulations to introduce a requirement to label with the method of slaughter. However, we do not consider at this stage that regulation is the best approach. Primarily, food businesses should provide consumers with the information that they want and need. If there is to be compulsory labelling, we believe that this would best be done at a European level. That would be best for consumers and also ensure that we do not put our food industry at a competitive disadvantage.

[Philip Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jenny Willott]

I will not give way, I am afraid. I have no time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said that there was widespread customer demand for labelling of the kind that has been suggested. An EU study is currently being undertaken on precisely that question, so we are waiting with interest the publication of the study so that we have full information on what consumers want. We will review all our options at that point.

We had a good debate about product safety in Committee and we have discussed it recently in the Chamber. There is already legislation on product safety recalls, which places strict duties on producers and distributors to ensure the safety of products. These regulations also provide trading standards with comprehensive powers to enforce them. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, we need to improve the effectiveness of product recalls. The traceability of products after sale is a real challenge, as he said, but I do not believe that introducing new reporting requirements or a new overarching agency is the right approach. The vast majority of businesses take the safety of their customers very seriously and I believe that the best approach is therefore for us to continue to work with representatives from industry, consumer groups and enforcement agencies to ensure that the system is as effective as possible.

The issue of lettings has also excited people this afternoon. Most letting agents offer a good service. A blanket ban on fees, as new clause 22 proposes, cannot therefore be the answer to tackle a minority of irresponsible agents. In addition, banning fees will not make it cheaper for tenants, because tenants will just end up paying through higher rents rather than upfront fees. The hon. Member for Walthamstow highlighted the example of Scotland. My understanding is that in the first quarter after the change was introduced rents rose significantly in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and in the year to March rents rose by more in Scotland than in England and in Wales. In fact, the rate of increase in rents was double that in Wales. So it is not quite as simple a picture as the hon. Lady highlighted.

We are already changing the law to require all letting and managing agents to belong to an approved redress scheme, which will give tenants an effective way to make complaints. Last month the Housing Minister approved three redress schemes that all letting and property management agents will be required to join later this year. This will ensure that tenants and leaseholders have a straightforward way of holding their agents to account. The three compulsory schemes, which are the property ombudsman, ombudsman services: property and the property redress scheme, will offer independent investigation of complaints about hidden fees or poor service. Where a complaint is upheld, tenants and leaseholders could get compensation.

We are going further. Today, in a move that ensures a fair deal for landlords and tenants, I am pleased to announce that we will be amending the Bill to require letting agents to publish full details of the fees that they charge. Currently the Advertising Standards Authority requires letting agents only to list charges to the tenant up front in their advertisements. Those letting agents who are found to have imposed hidden charges face little more than being named and shamed on the authority’s website. We want to go further to require all letting agents to publish a full tariff of their fees both on their website and prominently in their offices. Anyone who does not comply with those new rules will face a fine that is a much stricter penalty than currently exists. While every business remains free to set its own fees it has to be transparent, so competition will ensure that letting agents will have to justify those fees to tenants.

Today’s plans add to the work that the Government have already done to offer stronger protections for landlords and tenants in the private rented sector while avoiding excessive regulation, which would force up rents and reduce choice. We intend to review the requirement for greater transparency after 12 months of operation to confirm that it is delivering the expected benefits. If not, the Government will consider whether the proposals need to go further.

We have discussed micro-businesses in an earlier debate, so I will briefly state that we do not support extending the consumer protections in the Bill to smaller businesses. The provisions in the Bill have been designed for consumers, and we cannot and should not assume that they can be applied as successfully to small businesses as they can to consumers. As the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills acknowledged, all business groups that responded to the Government’s 2008 consultation preferred to retain the clarity of the current distinction between business and consumer.

Finally, on Government amendment 14 and Opposition amendment 5, I am happy to change the process from a requirement for the negative to the affirmative procedure, and have tabled a Government amendment to that effect. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will not press her amendment.

[Philip Davies]

I did not hear the Minister make any remarks about new clause 14, which appeared to have cross-party support. Will the Government support it too?

[Jenny Willott]

Given the time restrictions, I shall say that we support the intention behind the new clause but not its wording, as there are a number of problems with it. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman after the debate the points that he has made to see if there is a way forward. With those remarks, I hope that hon. Members are happy that I have covered all the issues that were raised in the debate.